Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for an exemption for the Clean Air Zone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue an exemption for her vehicle in relation to the Clean Air Zone (CAZ). Mrs X says the Council should have granted the exemption on humanitarian grounds because she was the victim of a scam.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes correspondence about the exemption. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Some drivers must pay to enter the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) if their vehicle does not meet the emissions standard. Bradford residents, or business owners, may qualify for an exemption if they have a non-compliant vehicle.
5. Mrs X applied for an exemption as a resident. The Council refused the exemption because she did not provide evidence she lives in Bradford and other evidence suggested she lives elsewhere. For example, in September Mrs X told the Council she had left the area and had no permanent address. The Council invited Mrs X to provide evidence she lives in Bradford but, as she did not, it confirmed she is not eligible for an exemption.
6. Mrs X says the Council should accept the application on humanitarian grounds because she had been scammed and feared for her life. The Council asked for evidence from the police; Mrs X said the police did not take any action.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council assessed Mrs X’s application but decided she does not qualify for an exemption because she did not provide evidence she lives in Bradford. It considered the points she made about the scam but noted she did not provide any evidence from the police. The Council’s decision reflects the CAZ policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
8. We are not an appeal body. It is not my role to remake the decision and we have no power to issue an exemption.
9. If Mrs X moves back to Bradford she could make a new application for an exemption; she would need to provide evidence of her address.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman