Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Clean Air Zone exemption for his new vehicle. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) exemption for his new vehicle which he uses for his work. Mr X’s previous vehicle had an exemption and he expected one to be granted for his new vehicle. The Council’s decision has had a significant financial impact on Mr X and he did not account for the extra cost of over £3000 per year to use his vehicle for work and everyday use.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied to the Council for a CAZ exemption for his new vehicle which he purchased in May 2025. His previous vehicle, which he uses for his work, had an exemption and Mr X expected one to also be granted for his new vehicle.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application. It explained it did not meet the eligibility criteria for granting of an exemption. This is because exemptions are only granted to vehicles which were purchased by the applicant prior to the start of the scheme in September 2022.
9. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. It found the decision to refuse the application was correct, and made in line with the published eligibility criteria because Mr X purchased the vehicle after the launch of the scheme.
10. Information on exemption eligibility is clearly published on the Council’s website as follows:

“If you have had an exemption and sell your vehicle the exemption will be cancelled, and you can’t have another exemption. If your new vehicle makes too much pollution, you will have to pay to drive in the Bradford Clean Air Zone. Before you buy a vehicle, check online if you need to pay CAZ charges.”

“To get an exemption, you must have owned your vehicle before 26 September 2022 and have the V5c (logbook) in your name and address. If you bought it after that date, you can’t get an exemption because this is the cut off point for the exemption scheme. This is the date the Clean Air Zone became live.”

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because whilst I acknowledge he is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It considered and decided his application in line with the published criteria for granting of an exemption. This information is clearly published on the Council's website and could have been checked prior to Mr X purchasing a new vehicle. Mr X incorrectly assumed he would continue to receive an exemption, however this was not caused by any fault by the Council.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question the decision, even though Mr X disagrees with it. The relevant information on eligibility has been published on the Council’s website since the start of the scheme and it has acted in line with this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman