Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a grant under the Clear Air Zone scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to give him a grant for a compliant vehicle under the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) scheme. Mr X says the Council misunderstood what happened and wrongly refused the application.

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 Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence, supporting evidence and the grant policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council offers grants to help people buy replacement cars that meet the emission standards and are compliant with the CAZ. The eligibility rules include that there must be no cash transactions, the applicant must submit a full invoice signed by the buyer of the non-compliant car, and must provide evidence of the transfer of funds from the buyer to the applicant.
5. Mr X had a non-compliant car and bought a compliant car. Mr X applied for a grant. He submitted a handwritten note which said he had sold the car to Mr S for £500.
6. Mr X said Mr S cannot do on-line banking. Mr X said Mr S gave the money to Mr T who transferred £500 to Mr X’s bank account through on-line banking.
7. Mr X then submitted another invoice which said Mr T was the buyer of the non-compliant car.
8. The Council refused to issue a grant. It said Mr X had provided contradictory information about who had bought the old car and how it had been paid for. It said Mr X had not provided proof of an electronic transfer of funds from the buyer of the old car to Mr X. It also said the documents Mr X submitted did not prove the £500 on the bank statement was for the purchase of the non-compliant car.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have considered the evidence submitted by Mr X, and the CAZ grant policy, and I see no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision that Mr X has not shown he meets the qualifying rules for a grant.

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