Summary: Mr B says the Council removed and destroyed his cars, which he had not abandoned. The cars were stationary for a long time so met the test of an abandoned vehicle. The Council followed the correct process in law to remove and dispose of the cars. Although Mr B was in contact with the Council there was no evidence the cars belonged to him. The Council failed to follow its complaints procedure at stage one; it delayed, and the response was from the officer subject to the complaint. This caused Mr B some anger and frustration. The Council will apologise and remind staff they must follow the published complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council destroyed his cars, despite continuing discussion. The Council then failed to respond to his complaint, because he mentioned potential legal action though had not taken any such action at that stage and wished his complaint investigated. Mr B would like to be compensated for his lost cars, which he says were not abandoned.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr B and the Council.
• The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978.
• Responses to a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B left three cars on private land with permission of the landowner; he says they were in a safe and tidy condition. The Council received a report that the cars were abandoned.

What should happen?

6. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 allows the Council to remove vehicles from the open air, even if they are on private land. The Council must give the landowner or occupier 15 days’ notice of its proposal to remove the vehicle; it cannot remove it if the landowner/occupier objects.
7. The Council must decide if the vehicle is abandoned; it is likely if at least one of the following applies:
• It has no keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database and us untaxed
• It is stationary for a significant amount of time
• It is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy
• It is burned out
• A number plate is missing
8. The Council can remove and store the vehicle but must try and find the owner. If the Council finds the owner it must give them seven days’ notice to collect the vehicle before it can dispose of it.

What did happen?

9. The Council decided the cars were abandoned because they had been stationary for a long time. The cars were there for several years, and not in use.
10. The Council attached notices to the cars giving the landowner 15 days to respond, otherwise it would remove the cars. The Council received no response so removed the cars 23 days later and put them in storage.
11. The Council knocked on the door of the landowner many times over a three-month period, but never got a reply.
12. The Council traced the car owners from the DVLA and wrote to them; it got no reply. Mr B is not the registered keeper of any of the cars, he confirms this is the case. Mr B says he is the owner even though the cars are registered to his sister and to a friend.
13. Mr B’s niece checks on the cars every few months. She was surprised to find the cars were not there; she contacted the Police and the Council and discovered the Council had removed them.
14. Mr B’s niece spoke with a Council officer and says the officer told her the Council would not dispose of the cars while there was an ongoing dispute; the Council disputes this. The Council says it told Mr B’s niece that to release the cars it needed proof of ownership and payment of the removal and storage costs, the owner would also need to pay to transport the cars on collection as they were not taxed and insured so could not be driven away. The Council told her the current costs for removal and storage, and that charges were accruing daily.
15. Mr B then contacted the Council to say he was the owner of the cars and wanted to know what was happening. The Council replied a few weeks later and explained what had happened. The Council advised the time to appeal would have been when the notices were attached to the car. The Council said as there was no appeal it had correctly removed the cars and the recovery costs would have to be paid for it to release the cars.
16. Mr B wrote straight back asking if the cars had been scrapped. The Council replied two months later saying as it had not received a response from the registered keepers of the cars it had now disposed of them. The Council says Mr B never proved he owned the cars, and it kept them longer than normal before disposing of them.
17. Mr B made a complaint about the Council officer he had been communicating with. The Council’s complaints process says your complaint will be sent to the manager of the service you are unhappy about. The Council officer Mr B was complaining about is a team leader and responded to his complaint. The Council should respond within ten days but took two months.
18. Mr B progressed the complaint to stage two. In his request for a stage two he said he will be taking civil action against the Council over the matter. The Council responded within the ten-day timescale, it confirmed it followed the due legal process to remove and dispose of the cars. The Council said as he was taking legal action there was nothing further to add.
19. Mr B progressed his complaint to stage three, the final stage of the Council’s procedure. He explained that although he had mentioned legal action, he was hoping they could resolve the matter without the need for that. The Council responded within the 20-working day timescale.

Was there fault causing injustice?

20. Mr B says the cars were not abandoned as he had permission to park them there, but that is not the test in law of an abandoned vehicle. The cars had been stationary for a long time, so the Council had a valid reason to remove them.
21. The Council followed the correct process of putting notices on the cars before removing them. The cars were parked outside Mr B’s friend’s house, so you would expect his friend to have contacted him or the Council on seeing the notices on the cars. It is unfortunate that did not happen but is not fault by the Council.
22. The Council followed the correct process by writing to the registered keepers but received no reply. The Council told Mr B he was not the registered owner of the cars and it would write to the registered owners. Mr B should have asked his sister and friend (the registered owners) to respond to the Council about the cars. They could have confirmed he was the owner and they were happy for the Council to release the cars to him. Though Mr B would have to pay the Council’s costs before it would release the cars.
23. It is upsetting for Mr B that he has lost the cars, but I cannot say that is caused by any fault of the Council. After removing the cars, the Council kept them for five months allowing ample time for the registered keepers to come forward or for Mr B to prove ownership. The owner would then need to pay the costs incurred in the removal and storage of the cars before taking them away. When the Council disposed of the cars the costs would have been around £10,000 as storage was £25 per day per car. The Council could not hold the cars indefinitely and continue to accrue costs at public expense.
24. The Council’s communication could have been better, it took two months to respond to one of Mr B’s e-mails. The Council was aware that Mr B was claiming ownership and had an interest in the cars, it could therefore have told him of its intentions and actions. However, as there was no evidence the cars were legally Mr B’s the Council had no real duty to him. The registered keepers of the cars did not respond to the Council’s correspondence, so it disposed of the cars. At each stage the Council allowed longer than it legally had to. The Council followed the correct process in law, so I find no fault.
25. The Council officer Mr B was complaining about responded to the complaint at stage one. It is inappropriate for any officer to respond to a complaint about themselves. A manager should have dealt with Mr B’s stage one complaint, if the manager is the person complained of the Council should make suitable alternative arrangements to respond to the complaint. The Council should have dealt with Mr B’s stage one complaint within ten days but took two months. The delay and response from the officer concerned caused Mr B anger and frustration.
26. Mr B says the Council did not deal with his complaint because he mentioned legal action, however the Council did deal with the complaint at stages two and three. The Council’s stage two and three responses advised Mr B it had followed the correct legal process and had nothing further to add. While this response was disappointing for Mr B to hear, it was not fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To acknowledge the impact of its fault, and to prevent it happening again, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr B for failing to follow its complaints procedure at stage one. The Council delayed its response, and the response was from the officer Mr B was complaining about.
2. Remind relevant staff they must follow the published complaints procedure when they receive a complaint.
28. The Council should complete the recommended actions within one month of the Ombudsman’s decision, and evidence to the Ombudsman its compliance.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation on the basis the agreedaction is sufficient to acknowledge the impact of its fault and to prevent future problems.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman