The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion not to further investigate Mr D’s complaint about the Authority’s refusal to pay him a grant under its vehicle scrappage scheme after he missed its deadline following various health problems. Mr D does not want the investigation to continue as the Authority has now paid it to him. In addition, to carry on investigating would achieve no worthwhile outcome as the grant has been paid.
The complaint
Mr D complains about the Authority’s failure to pay him a grant under its vehicle scrappage scheme after he had various health problems a year ago which meant he could not meet its deadline: as a result, he suffered financially as he had already borrowed money and bought a new vehicle.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered all the information Mr D sent, as well as the notes I made of our telephone conversation. I sent a copy of my final decision to Mr D and the Authority.
What I found
In 2019, Mr D applied to the Authority under the vehicle scrappage scheme. This allowed drivers on low incomes, or with disabilities, to scrap their older, more polluting vehicles for cleaner ones. To help them do this, the scheme paid a grant. Its aim was to reduce vehicle emission pollution in London.
The Authority wrote to Mr D, explaining he was eligible under the scheme. It told him what he had to do to get a grant payment. It needed to receive certain evidence from him within six months of its letter. Unfortunately, Mr D was diagnosed with various health problems the same year. Shortly after, he had to shield to avoid catching Covid-19. This meant he could not send the evidence it wanted.
Mr D wrote to the Authority explaining what had happened and why he could not meet its deadline. In June 2021, it replied telling him what evidence he still needed to send and asked how much longer he needed. He says it agreed more time for him to send it.
In September, Mr D says he got another letter from the Authority saying it could no longer help. This was because he had not sent the evidence it needed within the deadline. The scheme had now closed, and it could not pay him a grant. By this time Mr D had already borrowed the money and bought a new van.
When we spoke, Mr D told me the Authority had now paid him the grant which meant there was no reason for him to carry on with this complaint. He no longer wished to pursue it.
I exercised discretion to end the investigation of his complaint because of his wishes. In addition, I am also satisfied to continue investigating the complaint would serve no useful purpose. This is because the Authority has already remedied any claimed injustice by paying him the grant.
Final decision
I discontinued the investigation of Mr D’s complaint against the Authority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman