The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Clean Air Zone Grant. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision that he does not qualify for a grant under its Clean Air Taxi Programme.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start or continue 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)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied for a grant under the Council’s Clean Air Taxi Programme.
The Council refused Mr X’s application because his vehicle did not meet the eligibility criteria for issuing of a grant for a non-compliant vehicle. This is because the vehicle had not been licenced since April 2019 and Mr X was no longer the owner of the vehicle. Mr X had not owned or registered a taxi vehicle of his own since April 2019.
Mr X asked the Council to review its decision and provided information about his medical condition which had prevented him from working full time until recently. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but upheld its original decision. It explained it could not take his medical condition or disability into account as a mitigating factor for him not owning a vehicle.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered, decided and refused Mr X’s grant application in line with the published eligibility criteria which apply to all applications.
Mr X did not own a qualifying vehicle when he applied for the grant and so he did not meet the eligibility criteria. The criteria does not consider the reasons why an applicant did not own a vehicle at the time. It is a grant solely for those who own a qualifying licenced vehicle. The criteria is published on the Council’s website. This states that in order to qualify you must be a proprietor of a licenced vehicle with Bradford Council and, if you have a vehicle which is not compliant with the Clean Air Zone standards, your vehicle must be licensed at the time you submit your grant application and have been licensed continuously since on or before 26 May 2021.
Mr X is also unhappy the Council’s final response stated he had been leasing a car on and off since 2019, which he says is not the case. I have considered this point, however I can see it had no impact on the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman