Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle scrappage payment. This is because the decision complies with eligibility criteria for the scheme and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached.

The complaint

1. Mr X says Transport for London (TfL) has refused his application for a vehicle scrappage payment. He says his application was rejected on a technicality and wants TfL to agree to the payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a vehicle scrappage payment for his non ULEZ compliant vehicle in 2024. Mr X had registered this vehicle as off the road (SORN) prior to making the application.
6. TfL’s decision to reject Mr X’s application follows the eligibility criteria, which states that for a vehicle to be eligible for the ULEZ scrappage payment, it must be taxed, insured and have a valid MOT at the point of application. If Mr X had already registered his vehicle as off the road, then it follows the vehicle was not taxed at the point of application as that is the purpose of a SORN. There is therefore not enough evidence of fault in TfL’s decision making process to justify an investigation.
7. After some correspondence about the evidence on Mr X’s SORN, TfL clarified it needed evidence to confirm the vehicle was not taxed at the point of application, which is ultimately the basis on which it rejected it. We cannot conclude any confusion between SORN and evidence of road tax being paid and not refunded because of it affected the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting TfL’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman