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 the eligibility criteria for the scheme and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was reached.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) has refused his application for a vehicle scrappage payment. He says he needs to buy a new vehicle and believes TfL has discriminated against him.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. TfL refused Mr X’s application for a vehicle scrappage payment because he has already had one under a previous version of the scheme. The criteria, set out on TfL’s website, are clear that if a person has already had a scrappage payment they will not be eligible for another one. The terms and conditions also state “For the avoidance of doubt, the Recipient can only submit one Application and receive one Grant payment.”
5. TfL’s decision follows the eligibility criteria and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. Mr X should have an ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) compliant vehicle purchased with the first scrappage payment he received and if this is no longer suitable he may be able to sell it and put the money towards something else.
6. While Mr X claims TfL’s decision is discriminatory, as he says he now has a disability and needs the money because he can no longer use his old vehicle, we cannot determine if TfL has discriminated against him; this is a matter for the courts.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman