Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-008-156 Sector Transport And Highways Category Traffic Management Decided 03 October 2022

View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to exempt Mr X’s vehicle from clean air zone (CAZ) charging. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

Mr X complains the Council refused to exempt his vehicle from its Clean Air Zone (CAZ) charging scheme. He says he must drive in the CAZ most days for personal and family reasons. Not having the exemption means he will have to pay £9 a day.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mr X applied for a private resident’s vehicle exemption from the CAZ charge. The CAZ scheme only allows such exemptions for vehicles belonging to people living in the Council’s area. Mr X lives around 1,500 metres outside the Council’s area, so the Council refused the application.

The Council was entitled to have a scheme that only gave the exemption in question to residents of its area, even if that was unwelcome to some people, for example those living just outside the Council’s area. In that context, it is relevant that an aim of the scheme is to reduce emissions in the CAZ. There was no fault in the Council following the rules of its scheme in Mr X’s case. Mr X points out that his vehicle is less polluting than some vehicles that do not have to pay the charge. That does not mean the Council was at fault for following its scheme.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving City of Bradford Metropolitan District …

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-030-607 Other
25-029-551 Other
25-015-846 Other
25-018-416 Other
25-006-606 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation