Summary: Mr B complained that Transport for London delayed in responding to his grant application. We find Transport for London at fault for a delay in providing Mr B with the outcome of his application and for providing inconsistent reasons for refusing his application. This caused Mr B uncertainty and frustration. Transport for London agreed to apologise to Mr B to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained Transport for London delayed in processing his application for the Ultra Low Emission Zone scrappage scheme and that the application process was confusing. Mr B says the delay in his application being processed meant he did not receive a decision until the scheme had ended. This meant he was unable to address the issues with his application and submit the relevant evidence. Mr B says he was unable to benefit from the scheme, and this caused a financial burden, business disruption, stress and wasted time. Mr B would like Transport for London to reconsider his application and provide the scrappage grant. Mr B would also like Transport for London to acknowledge the delays and improve its complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and Transport for London as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. Mr B and Transport for London had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. Transport for London (TfL) ran a scrappage scheme between January 2023 and September 2024 to provide financial assistance to help eligible London residents, businesses and charities to scrap, donate or retrofit vehicles that did not meet the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) emission standards.
6. The scheme terms and conditions are published online, and they set out a two stage eligibility process.
7. Schedule I, Part one, section 2 states ‘where an organisation is registered with Companies House or a charity is registered with the Charity Commission at an address outside Greater London, they will need to prove that they have an operating address within Greater London’.
8. Schedule I, Part 2, states the vehicle must be insured for business use, have a valid MOT and road tax at the date of the recipient’s application and the applicant must provide evidence of this as with the application.
9. To be eligible for the grant, the applicant must meet the above criteria, and, as a microbusiness, they must be registered with Companies House or VAT registered, with a registered address in Greater London or an operating address within Greater London.
10. TfL’s website explained it aimed to process applications within 10 working days of receipt and contact applicants via email to let them know its decision.

Background information

11. Within Mr B’s application and correspondence with Transport for London there are three different addresses discussed.
• Address 1 – Detailed in the application and correspondence as the company’s operating address. This is a virtual office address in the Greater London area.
• Address 2 – The company’s registered address. This is an address outside of the Greater London area.
• Address 3 – Mr B’s home address. This is an address within the Greater London area.

What happened

12. The following is a summary of key events. It is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. Mr B submitted an application for the ULEZ scrappage grant in early June 2024. The online application form allowed for the option a business may have a different operating address to the address registered with Companies House.
14. In his initial application Mr B gave address 1 as his business address and he provided evidence to support his application. Mr B provided a letter which explained his company was registered to address 2 and his home address is address 3.
15. TfL told us Mr B did not pass the initial eligibility checks as the vehicle he was applying for did not have an MOT or road tax at the point of application.
16. In response to our enquiries TfL explained it had received numerous applications using address 1 so it had placed this address on a watchlist. TfL told us it escalated Mr B’s application further checks on the business address before it was rejected.
17. TfL wrote to Mr B at the beginning of September to advise the vehicle was not eligible for the grant as it had no road tax or MOT. By this date the scheme had closed. TfL did not include any information in the refusal letter explaining its decision about Mr B’s business address. Mr B responded to the letter to ask if he could tax and MOT the vehicle to make it eligible.
18. In October 2024 Mr B requested TfL reconsider his application as it took three months to provide a response to his initial application. Transport for London agreed to reconsider the application.
19. In order to reconsider the application, Transport for London requested Mr B provide the following documents to evidence to his company’s operational address:
• A utility bill
• HMRC tax return dated within the last 6 months
• A rental agreement reflecting the operating address
20. Mr B provided a letter from address 1 which explained he had permission to use the address as his business/trading address. Mr B also accidentally submitted some documents which related to address 3.
21. In response to our enquiries TfL explained it confirmed address 1 is a virtual address, and it did not receive any evidence from Mr B which confirmed his business operated from this address. TfL’s decision was therefore to refuse the application as the initial eligibility criteria was not met.
22. TfL wrote to Mr B at the beginning of November to explain his application had been rejected as the documents he provided reflected a different operational address to that entered in his application. TfL failed to explain its findings in relation to address 1 being a virtual address and not being satisfied the evidence showed the company operated from this address.
23. Mr B wrote to TfL to explain he disagreed with the decision to refuse the application. In this letter Mr B said address 1 is his business address and address 3 is his operating address and TfL was misunderstanding the difference between the two.
24. Three days later Mr B wrote a further letter to TfL to request a review of its decision. This letter explained Mr B had completed the application with address 1 as his business and operational address. The letter states this is the address where Mr B receives all business related correspondence, including parcels, bank statements, supplier and client communications. The letter then explains that Mr B’s business activities are conducted primarily from address 3 and the company is registered with Companies House under address 2. Mr B provided further evidence to show address 1 is his company’s operational address.
25. TfL responded to Mr B to advise the scheme was now closed and it would not consider any further applications or evidence.

My findings

26. There is no fault in Transport for London’s consideration of Mr B’s initial application. His vehicle did not meet the eligibility requirements and was therefore not eligible for the grant.
27. In accordance with its own policy, TfL should have provided its decision on Mr B’s application within 10 working days, by the end of June 2024. TfL did not write to Mr B until September 2024. This is a delay of approximately 64 days. This is fault which caused Mr B uncertainty and frustration.
28. TfL wrote to Mr B and explained he was not eligible for the grant due to his vehicle not having road tax or a valid MOT. TfL failed to explain its decision about Mr B’s operational address. This is fault which caused Mr B uncertainty.
29. Transport for London remedied the above injustice by reconsidering Mr B’s application.
30. Transport for London reconsidered Mr B’s application and supporting evidence. The application submitted by Mr B, and further correspondence from Mr B stated address 1 as Mr B’s operational address. Transport for London confirmed this to be a virtual address and it did not consider Mr B’s evidence confirmed his business operated from this address. There is no evidence of fault in TfL’s consideration of Mr B’s application and evidence.
31. I have found no fault with the online application form or information TfL requested from Mr B to confirm his eligibility. The terms and conditions of the scheme make it clear that TfL understand some companies will have a registered business address which is different to its operational address and the form allowed for this option.
32. Transport for London failed to explain the virtual address issue in its decision letter. Transport for London provided inconsistent information about why the application was rejected. This is fault which caused frustration and confusion for Mr B.
33. There is no evidence of fault in Transport for London’s communication with Mr B after the initial delay following the application. Transport for London responded to Mr B’s contact in a timely manner.

Back to top

Actions

34. Within one month of the final decision Transport for London will apologise to Mr B for the injustice caused by the inconsistencies in its correspondence and failure to explain the issue with address 1. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. Transport for London has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman