The complaint

2. Mr X complained about the way Transport for London (TfL) handled his application to its vehicle scrappage scheme. He says they wrongly rejected his applications of June and September 2024 and delayed responding to his complaints. Mr X says this caused him financial losses along with avoidable stress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and TfL as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Transport for London Scrappage Scheme

7. TfL administered a scrappage scheme (the scheme) from January 2023 which provided 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) emissions standards.
8. The eligibility criteria for the scheme included:
• Location: resided at an address in one of London’s 32 boroughs or the City of London (Greater London area)
• Vehicle type: a non-ULEZ-compliant car, motorcycle or wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV)
• Registration: the vehicle had to be registered to the applicant (or someone who lives at the same address) and for more than 12 months prior to 30 January 2023
• Evidence: have proof of a valid MOT, road tax and insurance at the date of application. Proof of address and identity was also required.
9. Initially eligibility was also based on the applicant receiving at least one means-tested income benefit or one non-means tested disability benefit. This changed, however, and from the end of July 2023 anyone in receipt of child benefit with a non-ULEZ-compliant vehicle could apply. Then from 21 August 2023 anyone with a non-ULEZ-compliant car, motorcycle or wheelchair accessible vehicle could apply.

Complaint-handling

10. TfL’s complaint-handling policy states that all complaints will be acknowledged within 48 hours and a full response will be provided within 10 working days. In the event that more time is required, the customer will be informed of:
• what is happening with their complaint;
• how long it will likely take for the response; and
• the name and contact details of the person dealing with the complaint.
11. TfL’s complaints policy is also in line with our own guidance on complaint stages which says a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days.

What happened

12. Mr X applied to the scheme in June 2024. TfL rejected this application because Mr X’s proof of residence was invalid and he had not owned the vehicle long enough. TfL did not explain this to Mr X or ask for further evidence from him.
13. Mr X applied to the scheme again in September 2024. TfL also rejected this application for the same reasons and still did not ask for additional evidence.
14. In November 2024 Mr X complained to TfL. It did not respond and instead asked Mr X to submit a stage 2 complaint. Mr X wrote to TfL in December 2024 with a stage 2 complaint, but TfL says it did not receive his letter.
15. Mr X wrote to TfL again about his complaint in early May 2025. TfL acknowledged this complaint at the end of May 2025, 3 weeks after it received Mr X’s complaint.
16. TfL responded to Mr X’s complaint in early June 2025. It apologised to Mr X for rejecting his applications in error and for the delays in responding to his complaint. It reviewed, and subsequently approved, Mr X’s application for the scheme and agreed to refund the ULEZ charges incurred by Mr X between June 2024 and March 2025. TfL has since provided evidence that this refund has been processed.
17. Mr X says he incurred other costs, including tax and insurance on the vehicle in question, and the cost of printing and posting complaints letters. He also suffered stress and uncertainty as a result of the failure. TfL has acknowledged the stress experienced by Mr X. In recognition of the time and trouble spent dealing with the complaint, TfL has offered a symbolic payment of £200 to Mr X.

Analysis

18. TfL acknowledged in its complaint response of June 2025 that it should not have rejected Mr X’s applications of June and September 2024. Instead, it should have contacted Mr X to ask for more evidence about his application. This was fault.
19. It is reasonable to assume that, if TfL had handled Mr X’s application correctly, it would have approved the application much sooner. Mr X would then not have incurred ULEZ charges in the interim. I am satisfied that TfL has remedied this injustice by reviewing the application and refunding the charges to Mr X.
20. TfL also acknowledged fault for not responding to Mr X’s complaint in November 2024. It says it did not receive Mr X’s letter in December 2024 but has confirmed that Mr X has proof of sending it. When Mr X complained again in May 2025 there was an additional delay of about 2 weeks before TfL sent an acknowledgement.
21. Again, had TfL responded to Mr X’s initial complaint in the correct way it would likely have resolved the issues much sooner. This injustice has been remedied by TfL reviewing the application and refunding the ULEZ charges. It also offered to pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the stress suffered, which I consider a suitable remedy.
22. Our approach is always to ask what would likely have happened but for the fault we have identified.  Whilst I recognise Mr X has experienced stress and uncertainty, it would not be appropriate for TfL to refund vehicle tax or insurance costs that he incurred during this period. Even had TfL handled his initial application to the scheme correctly, Mr X would likely have then obtained another vehicle which he would have had to tax and insure. We also do not recommend repayment of the actual costs (such as postage and phone calls) associated with making a complaint.
23. As a result of a recent complaint to us, TfL agreed to remind its staff about the importance of offering advice to scheme applicants about their supporting documents. We are also completing a separate investigation, using our powers under 26D of the Local Government Act 1974, into the way TfL made and publicised decisions about the scheme and its applications process. As such, I will not make recommendations for service improvements.

Back to top

Action

24. In recognition of the fault and injustice to Mr X, TfL should, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise to Mr X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology;
2. Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the avoidable stress and uncertainty.
25. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. TfL has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman