The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way Transport for London (TfL) dealt with her application for a grant under its van scrappage and replacement scheme. We have not found fault by TfL in the way it decided to reject Mrs Y’s application. But we have found fault by TfL in failing to communicate properly with Mrs Y about her application, causing injustice. TfL has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect her time and trouble, and contacting her about a new application for scrappage only.
The complaint
The complainant, who I am calling Mrs Y, complains about the way TfL dealt with her application for a grant under its van scrappage scheme.
Mrs Y says TfL offered her a grant to scrap her old business van and replace it with a ULEZ compliant vehicle. She provided it with the required proof, but TfL did not respond to her further correspondence about the application. After a long delay TfL told her the application had been rejected.
Mrs Y wants TfL to honour its part of the agreement and pay out the grant.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs Y, made enquiries of TfL and read the information she and TfL provided about the complaint.
I invited Mrs Y and TfL to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.
What I found
TfL’s van scrappage scheme TfL operated a scrappage scheme (the scheme) under which successful applicants would receive a grant for scrapping a business van, which did not meet ULEZ emission standards, and replacing it with a ULEZ compliant vehicle. Applicants could also apply for a grant for scrapping a non-compliant vehicle.
Applicants had to satisfy a number of criteria to be approved for the grant payment.
TfL published the scheme guidance notes, application form and terms and conditions on its website.
The scheme guidance notes These confirmed there were two stages to the scheme for the scrappage and replacement grant: The initial eligibility checks: the submission of the application form and supporting evidence. TfL would assess eligibility and confirm whether the application had been successful (the eligibility confirmation letter); and; The secondary eligibility checks: TfL would email successful applicants with the procedure for scrapping the old vehicle and, where applicable, replacing it.
The notes also confirmed: Applicants should not scrap their vehicle until they had received written confirmation they had satisfied the initial eligibility checks. Any action taken before receiving the confirmation was at their own risk and TfL would not be liable to make any grant payment How to complete the application form. The link to the scheme terms and conditions was provided and applicants were told to read these carefully and in full. Applicants were told failure to comply with the terms might result in the grant not being paid.
The scheme terms and conditions These confirmed: The applicant had six months from the date of the eligibility confirmation letter to comply with the secondary eligibility checks to qualify for a grant payment; To satisfy the secondary eligibility checks, the applicant had to provide documentary evidence they had scrapped the old vehicle within the last six months, and; Purchased, leased or hired the eligible replacement vehicle after the date of the eligibility confirmation letter.
What happened The application Mrs Y’s business owned a van which did not meet ULEZ requirements.
On 18 February 2020 Mrs Y applied to TfL for a grant under the scrappage and replacement scheme. She confirmed in the application form she accepted the scheme terms and conditions.
Applicants were required to send the current insurance certificate for the vehicle to be scrapped with the application. The document sent with Mrs Y’s application was an insurance renewal notice not the certificate.
TfL asked Mrs Y to send the current insurance certificate.
Mrs Y bought a new van on 27 February.
Mrs Y told TfL on 11 March she had bought two new vans.
TfL received the valid insurance certificate on 17 March.
On 23 March TfL sent Mrs Y the eligibility confirmation letter which confirmed: It had assessed her application in accordance with the scheme terms and conditions and initial eligibility checks and she and the old van were eligible for the scheme; In order to receive the grant, she would need to provide evidence she had scrapped the old van and bought a replacement van after the date of the confirmation letter; and This evidence must be submitted within six months from the date of the confirmation letter.
October 2020 to August 2021 TfL wrote to Mrs Y in October 2020 because it had not received evidence the old van had been scrapped and a replacement van bought after 23 March 2020.
Mrs Y replied on 21 October. She told TfL she had bought the replacement vehicle before the issue of the confirmation letter on 23 March because there was nothing in the application process advising applicants the replacement should only be bought after the date of the confirmation letter.
TfL did not reply to Mrs Y. She chased it for a response a number of times.
Finally, in June 2021 TfL told Mrs Y her application had been rejected. But it did not explain why.
In August 2021, TfL told Mrs Y the application had been rejected because evidence of scrappage of the old vehicle and purchase of the replacement after 23 March 2020 had not been provided within the six-month period.
Mrs Y’s complaint Mrs Y complained to us in September 2021. She said she felt TfL was at fault because of its delay, repeated requests for evidence and failure to respond to emails. This had led to the application being “timed out” and the rejection of her request for the grant payment.
We contacted TfL about Mrs Y’s complaint. It told us it: rejected Mrs Y’s application because the replacement vehicle had been acquired before the eligibility confirmation date, and the relevant evidence had not been provided within the required timescale.
accepted its responses were not clear or timely should have explained to Mrs Y her application did not meet the scheme terms because the replacement vehicle had been bought before the issue of the confirmation letter should apologise to Mrs Y for its communication failures My findings – was there fault by TfL causing injustice?
TfL’s decision to reject Mrs Y’s application The scheme terms stated the grant would only be paid on receipt of evidence the replacement vehicle had been acquired after the date of the confirmation letter.
Applicants were directed to, and told to read, the terms before making their application. Mrs Y confirmed in her application she had done so.
Mrs Y bought the replacement vehicle before the date of the confirmation letter and so had not complied with the scheme terms. Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is TfL properly considered the information Mrs Y provided in support of her application and secondary eligibility checks before deciding to reject the application. I do not consider there was fault in the way TfL made this decision.
The stage one approval TfL did not receive all the required information with the application. The valid insurance certificate was received on 17 March and TfL then issued the eligibility confirmation letter on 23 March. I do not consider there was any unreasonable delay by TfL in issuing the confirmation letter.
But TfL had information showing Mrs Y had already bought a replacement van. I consider it should have told Mrs Y at the outset the replacement van was not eligible for the grant, under the scheme terms, because it had been acquired before the stage one approval date. In my view it was fault by TfL not to explain this to Mrs Y. As a result of this, Mrs Y spent time and trouble pursuing an application for a grant for which the new van was not eligible.
I also consider TfL’s failure to explain this to Mrs Y in March 2020 meant she lost the opportunity to apply for the other option under the scheme - a grant just for scrapping the old van.
TfL has told us, because of its delay in rejecting the application for the scrappage and replacement grant, it will consider, and make a decision on, a new application from Mrs Y for scrappage only, subject to the required evidence being provided, and in accordance with the scheme rules. In my view this is an appropriate remedy for this aspect of the injustice caused.
Delays from March 2020 Mrs Y has told us she tried to contact TfL by phone about her application a number of times between March and October 2020 but was unable to speak to anyone. I do not consider this made any difference to the outcome of the application for the scrappage and replacement grant. The replacement van was bought before the date of the eligibility confirmation letter, and this was the reason the application was rejected.
However, I consider TfL’s failure to respond to Mrs Y’s email contact in October 2020 and her further correspondence about the application, and its failure to explain its decision to reject the application was fault. Because of this, Mrs Y spent avoidable time and trouble chasing TfL for a response and then bringing her complaint to us.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, TfL has agreed to: apologise to Mrs Y for its communication failures in response to her application; pay Mrs Y £250 to reflect the time and trouble its faults caused her. This is a symbolic amount in line with our published guidance on remedies; and Contact Mrs Y and provide her with the opportunity to make a new application for the scrappage only grant.
TfL should provide us with evidence it has completed these actions.
Final decision
I have found fault by TfL causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis TfL will carry out the above actions as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman