When London’s ultra low emissions zone (Ulez) spread to the suburbs, Colin Farrow* was keen to do the right thing. His 11-year-old Volkswagen does not meet the required emissions standards, but it is exempt from the daily charge for non-compliance because it is adapted to accommodate his wife’s electric wheelchair.
However, concern about air pollution prompted him to apply to Transport for London (TfL)’s scrappage scheme, which gives grants to replace older, more polluting vehicles with low emissions models.
Wheelchair-adapted vehicles are eligible for an enhanced grant of £10,000, and Farrow made a down payment on a replacement so that it would be ready as soon as his Volkswagen was scrapped.
To his astonishment, TfL refused his application because his vehicle was classed as “disabled”.
“I was told to ask the DVLA to remove this classification and then reapply,” he said. “This is bizarre. The vehicle has to be classified as ‘disabled’ by the DVLA to be eligible for the grant I applied for, and to be exempt from Ulez charges in the meantime.”
Farrow called TfL, but was told that it was not possible to talk to the scrappage team.
He submitted an online complaint, but, four weeks later, had not received a response. Without the grant, he and his wife, who has multiple sclerosis, face having to continue making unaffordable payments on the new specialised vehicle they have ordered, or lose their down payment.
“My wife cannot travel in a vehicle unless it has been adapted,” said Farrow. “TfL’s illogical and unpublicised requirements place her at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled applicant.”
TfL admitted the application had been rejected in error after the Observer questioned it, and confirmed that vehicles registered as “disabled” for tax exemptions were not disqualified from a grant.
It said: “We have apologised to Mr Farrow for any inconvenience he has experienced and given feedback to our staff regarding this case, to remind them of our established processes.” The couple has since received the grant.
The £210m scheme, launched by London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has removed about 50,000 polluting vehicles from the road since it was launched in January 2023. However, drivers have reported facing financial hardship because of administrative failings. Processing delays leave applicants who rely on their vehicles for work liable for a daily charge of £12.50, or a £180 fine, while they await a decision.
Some whose MOT, tax or insurance expire during the wait have been forced to renew and then reapply to remain eligible for a grant. Others claim they are still waiting for payment weeks after scrapping their cars.
The former Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon told the Observer the process was a “bureaucratic nightmare” and that Londoners were paying the price for understaffing. “Confusing letters, rejections without clear reasons, and a lack of staff to talk issues through with potential claimants are all issues I raised with the mayor and his team seven months ago,” she said.
TfL told the Observer that it does not monitor how many complaints it receives about the scheme.
While it does not disclose the reasons why so many applications are refused, it said that some had incorrect documents and that there had been instances of fraud. It says a detailed evaluation of the scheme will only be published once it ends.
Latest figures from TfL show that 60% of applications have been rejected since the launch. More than 123,000 have been submitted and about £170m has been paid in grants, leaving frustrated drivers competing for a dwindling funding pot.
Many who contacted the Observer have experienced repeated rejections for a different reason each time, including “missing” details that had already been provided, and outstanding documents that were not requested in the application process.
after newsletter promotion
The system, administered by Capita, issues automatic rejections if additional information is needed, and then requires drivers to reapply from scratch with the extra details.
One sole trader told us his application had been rejected 12 times, all for different reasons. On each occasion he had to wait 10 working days for a new application to be processed, and racked up hundreds of pounds in Ulez charges. Applicants who try to contact TfL about a claim are also told to expect a wait of 10 working days for a reply.
Fiona Scott Lazareff had her application accepted on her third attempt, and was given a month to dispose of her car at an approved scrapyard. She submitted the required certificate of destruction to TfL, then received a letter informing her that the £2,000 grant had been rescinded.
TfL told the Observer that that letter had been auto-generated because the month’s deadline had expired while the certificate was being processed. The grant was approved the next day.
“The system is a nightmare,” Scott Lazareff said. “It took me weeks for my application to be accepted because the terms and conditions are unclear, and on each attempt there was always a minor problem with one document that wasn’t mentioned before.
“The authorised dealer only sent the certificate of destruction after I threatened legal action, and it was impossible to upload it, as directed by TfL, because I kept receiving an error message. TfL denied receiving it despite having sent a digital receipt.”
TfL, on behalf of Capita, said it continually reviewed staffing and application processes. Since we exposed misleading information about supporting documents last November, it has amended its guidance. Applicants are now, for instance, informed that a photo driving licence is required. Previously, this was unspecified.
The authority also says it is aiming to process initial applications within 10 working days and to post cheques within the same timeframe after receiving a certificate of destruction.
“Evidence requirements ensure the scheme isn’t subject to fraud and that public money is protected,” said TfL. “We regularly review and refine processes to ensure it’s as clear as possible why an application has been rejected, and what is needed for us to consider a subsequent application.”
* Name has been changed
