Summary: Mr X complained about the way Transport for London handled his application to its van and minibus scrappage scheme. We have not found fault by Transport for London in the way it handled Mr X’s application. But we have found fault by it in failing to be open, accountable and transparent about its process for applications to scrap vehicles with outstanding penalty charge notices. This fault did not cause Mr X any personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way Transport for London (TfL) dealt with his application for a grant payment under its van and minibus scrappage scheme. He says it failed to:

• process his application properly. It rejected it a number of times for differing reasons, although he provided the required information;
• adequately explain why it kept rejecting his application when he provided everything it asked for; and
• respond promptly to his complaint.

2. Mr X wants TfL to accept he has provided all the information required for the scrappage scheme application and agree to pay the grant for scrapping his van.

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.
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)
5. 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)
6. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
7. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of TfL, and read the information Mr X and TfL provided about the complaint.
9. I invited Mr X and TfL to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

10. In January 2023, TfL launched a van and minibus scrappage scheme (the scheme) available to microbusinesses within Greater London. The scheme allowed eligible businesses to receive a grant to scrap or retrofit non-compliant vehicles to prepare for the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
11. The scheme requirements included that vehicles must be:

• registered to the organisation or an authorized employee or director of the microbusiness for not less than twelve (12) consecutive calendar months prior to 30 January 2023 as documented in the V5C Registration Document; and
• insured for business use and have a valid MOT and road tax at the date of the application.

Our principles of Good Administrative Practice

12. We publish guidance about good administrative practice for local government. We use this as a benchmark for the standards we expect when we investigate complaints organisations whose actions we investigate. LGO Intranet | Principles of good administrative practice
13. We expect organisations to be open and accountable. This includes being open and clear about policies and procedures and maintaining transparency in in the light of complex service delivery arrangements.

What happened

14. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

April 2023: Mr X’s application

15. In April 2023 Mr X applied to the van and minibus scrappage scheme, on behalf of his business – ABC – for a grant to scrap its business van. The V5C document he submitted with the application showed ABC was registered as acquiring the van on 16 November 2022.
16. TfL told Mr X on 2 May it had rejected his application because the V5C showed ABC had been the van’s registered keeper for less than 12 months prior to 30 January 2023. It explained applications could only be made by businesses who had been the vehicle’s registered keeper for at least 12 months prior to 30 January.

June 2023 to March 2024: Mr X’s further applications

17. Mr X made a number of further grant applications and provided some additional information about the van, its purchase, MOT and insurance.
18. TfL rejected each application. It referred to out of date insurance in its response to some of the applications.

March 2024: Mr X’s complaint

19. Mr X complained to TfL about the way it had handled his application. He said:

• he had been in possession of the vehicle for eight years and had provided TfL with the van’s purchase receipt confirming this;
• the V5C document did not reflect the true position but the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) refused to amend the VC5 to show the correct period of ownership; and
• TfL should now accept his application for a grant to scrap the van.

TfL’s complaint response

20. TfL confirmed the van was not eligible for the scheme because the VC5 document stated it was registered to his business for less than 12 months before 30 January 2023. It would need evidence, such as insurance certificates, showing the van was registered to his business before 1 February 2022 to support his claim DVLA had made a mistake.
21. It also said the application could not proceed in any event because there were outstanding penalty charge notices (PCNs) for the van.

TfL’s response to our enquires

22. We asked TfL to refer us to the relevant published scheme terms and conditions allowing it to reject an application where there were outstanding PCNs for the vehicle for which the grant was applied.
23. It told us:

• a requirement to settle outstanding PCNs was not a scheme term or condition. The existence of outstanding PCNs did not mean an application would be rejected;
• it introduced an internal business rule in April 2023, instructing that a search for outstanding PCNs should be carried out when processing an application. It says this was a secondary check and an applicant was not considered ineligible if outstanding PCNs were identified;
• where an applicant had outstanding PCNs, it would consider the case on its own merits. It would work with the applicant to secure payment or reach an amicable resolution; and
• where an applicant with outstanding PCNs refused to pay or did not respond to payment, their application was rejected.

My view – was there fault by TfL causing injustice?

TfL’s handling of Mr X’s application

24. I don’t consider there was fault in the way TfL responded to Mr X’s application.
25. This is because:

• the scheme terms and conditions clearly state the requisite period of the vehicle’s registration to the organisation must be documented in the V5C document;
• the VC5 document for the van submitted with Mr X’s first application in April 2023 confirmed the vehicle was not registered to the organisation (his business ABC) for the requisite period;
• as the van’s registration for the requisite period was not documented in the VC5 document, Mr X’s application did not meet the scheme’s terms and conditions; and
• TfL clearly explained to Mr X at the time why it had rejected his application.

TfL’s handling of applications with outstanding PCNs

26. My view is TfL failed to be open, accountable and transparent about its process for handling applications with outstanding PCNs. This is because:

• it says a requirement to settle outstanding PCNs was not a part of the scheme terms and conditions; but
• it introduced an unpublished process which effectively stopped applications proceeding without the settlement of outstanding PCN’s.

27. This failure was fault.
28. I don’t consider this fault caused Mr X any personal injustice. His application was rejected at the outset by TfL because the van’s registration to his business for the requisite period was not documented in the VC5 document.
29. But TfL’s failure to be open, accountable and transparent about its process for handling applications with outstanding PCNs may have caused a wider injustice. I propose beginning a separate investigation into this using our powers under section 26D of the Local Government Act 1974.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation of Mr X’s complaint. I have not found fault in the way TfL handled Mr X’s application. But I have found fault, which did not cause Mr X any personal injustice, with its failure to be open, accountable and transparent about its process.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman