Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a discretionary scrappage scheme for non-compliant vehicles. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to give sufficient information about its introduction of a local scrappage scheme for non-compliant vehicles. He says he scrapped his car because he could not wait of the scheme to start but then found that he was ineligible because the car was required for the payment process. He wants the Council to pay him the £1,000 which his car would have been eligible for had he retained it.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or

further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he heard in 2023 about the Council’s proposals to introduce a scrappage scheme similar to that introduced by Transport for London in which car owners are given a payment if they scrap their non-compliant vehicles. He says he was unable to find out details about the scheme on the Council’s website. After retaining his non-compliant car for some time he says he was forced to scrap it because of the costs of running it under the emissions charges. He subsequently found out that the scheme was only available to owners who still had their cars and so he was ineligible for the scrappage payment.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about the lack of information and the misleading releases on its website. I have found no evidence that there was misleading information issued. The Council’s website in August contained an article which confirmed that the Council’s Cabinet would consider the scheme later that month and if approved it would be introduced in September. The article made it clear that further details and conditions would be issued at a later date if it was approved.
7. As no owner could apply for the scheme until it was approved the decision to scrap his car prematurely was one which Mr X and other motorists in a similar situation had to make. There was no guarantee the scheme would be approved or any proposed conditions would not be changed following the cabinet meeting.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case the Council did not publish the conditions of the scrappage scheme until it had been approved by the Council’s cabinet. The policy does not apply retrospectively and Mr X’s decision to scrap his car before the scheme was approved was his personal decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a discretionary scrappage scheme for non-compliant vehicles. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman