Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of a grant under the clean air scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he bought a new van but the Council will not give him a grant under the clean air scheme. He needs a grant to pay the loan. He also complains about some Penalty Charge Notices (PCN).

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 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))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes information about the grants and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X had a van which was not compliant with the clean air zone. He had an exemption from the charge to enter the zone. He applied for a grant to help with the cost of buying a compliant vehicle. The Council approved the application in principle and, in May 2023, gave Mr X two months to buy a new van and provide proof of purchase. The Council told him it would cancel the exemption in two months time. The Council said it would cancel the grant application if he did not provide the evidence of the purchase before the deadline.
7. Mr X did not buy a new van in 2023 and the agreement in principle expired. The Council told Mr X in June 2023 it had closed the application. Mr X contacted the Council in July to say he still had the van. The Council reinstated the exemption. Mr X incurred some PCNs for driving in the clean air zone when the exemption was inactive.
8. In 2024 Mr X took out a loan and bought a new van on 9 May. On 15 May he made a second grant application. The Council refused the application because the rules say the new vehicle must be bought after the grant has been approved. The Council cancelled some of the PCNs to reflect the correct period when the exemption was not in place. The other PCNs are with bailiffs.
9. Mr X believes he is entitled to a grant and needs one to repay the loan. He says he did not know the exemption would stop if he applied for a grant.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council awarded a grant in 2023 but withdrew the offer because Mr X not comply with the evidence requirements. The Council clearly explained what he needed to do and the deadline. The letter also explained when the exemption would stop. There is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to close the first application.
11. The Council refused to award a grant in 2024 because Mr X had already bought a new van before making the second application. The rules say a grant cannot be awarded to anyone who has already bought a compliant van. I have seen the receipt for the van and Mr X bought it before making the second application. The Council’s decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. The first application was closed in 2023 so cannot be taken as an application made before the date of purchase.
12. Mr X also complains about the PCNs. I will not investigate this part of the complaint because he could have appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect him to appeal because the tribunal is the correct body to consider PCN disputes. The Council told Mr X the exemption would end and it cancelled some of the fines after it checked the period when the exemption was inactive.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have used his appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman