Summary: The Council removed a vehicle owned by Mr Y as it considered it had been abandoned due to being stationary for a significant period of time. Mr Y moved the vehicle after the notice was served but the Council still removed it and put it in storage. The Council was at fault for not making further enquiries before placing the vehicle in storage when it was clear it had been purposely moved.

The complaint

1. Mr X, on behalf of his son Mr Y, complains the Council wrongly removed his vehicle which was not abandoned.
2. Mr Y’s vehicle remains in storage, incurring charges and he does not have access to it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant’s representative; and
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr Y owns a camper van. The vehicle is old but was regularly used by Mr Y. Mr Y parked the vehicle outside an unused unit on an industrial estate while waiting to repair it. The vehicle was left locked and it was taxed.
7. The Council received a report in March 2019 about the vehicle. The person making the report said it had not moved for four months.
8. An enforcement officer visited the site and inspected the vehicle. He noted the vehicle was old and in poor condition. The Council carried out a DVLA check and identified Mr Y as the registered owner. The Council decided that due to its condition and the length of time at the current location, it was abandoned. A 15 day notice was attached to the vehicle.
9. The officer also wrote to Mr Y at the address provided by the DVLA. The letter said the Council believed the vehicle had been abandoned and it had a duty to remove it. It said failure to remove the vehicle by 9 April would result in the Council removing and destroying the vehicle. It said that it would be issuing a penalty charge if the vehicle is removed.
10. Mr Y moved the vehicle before 9 April. The vehicle was moved and parked outside another unit on the same industrial estate.
11. The Council’s enforcement officer visited again on 9 April. Although he noted it was moved, he decided not to contact Mr Y or issue another notice. The Council removed the vehicle and placed it in storage.
12. Mr X contacted the Council on behalf of Mr Y to argue the vehicle was not abandoned and the Council should not have removed it. The vehicle has remained in storage while the complaint is considered.

Analysis

13. There is no fault in the Council responding to a report in March 2019 that the vehicle was abandoned. It is accepted the vehicle was not in running order and had been parked for a period of time. The Council had a duty to inspect the vehicle and take a view on whether it was abandoned.
14. Government guidance states that it is likely that a vehicle is abandoned if at least one of the following applies:
• It has no keeper on the DVLA database and is untaxed;
• It’s stationary for a significant amount of time;
• It’s significantly damaged, run down or un-roadworthy -for example has flat tyres, missing wheels or broken windows;
• It’s burned out;
• A number plate is missing.
15. In this case the vehicle was taxed at the time of the initial inspection. It did not have an MOT. While the vehicle was old and not in good condition it had no flat tyres or missing wheels. There was a repaired window on one side. As the vehicle had been stationary for a significant amount of time, I am satisfied the Council officer used in professional judgement in deciding the vehicle had been abandoned. I therefore do not find fault in the decision to issue a 15 day notice.
16. As well as placing the notice on the vehicle windscreen, the Council also wrote to Mr Y at the registered address provided by the DVLA. Mr Y did become aware of the notice before the 15 day period expired and he moved the vehicle.
17. The information on the notice placed on the vehicle seems to differ from the letter sent to Mr Y. The notice states the Council intends to remove the vehicle unless Mr Y objects. The letter, while indicating Mr Y could contact it, said he should remove the vehicle. Mr Y moved the vehicle within the 15 day period.
18. When the Council returned, it noted the vehicle had moved. From the information provided to me about the new position, I am satisfied it was clear the vehicle had been purposely moved. The Council says it was the officer’s professional opinion the vehicle was still inappropriately parked on public land and so it was removed.
19. I consider the Council should have done more when it returned to the vehicle on 9 April. The reason for issuing the notice was that it had been stationary for a significant period of time. When the Council returned this had clearly changed. The vehicle was properly parked and so I think this should have led the officer to seek further information. I note that a year earlier a separate report had been made about the vehicle and on that occasion the Council visited Mr Y’s address and spoke to him. The decision to remove the vehicle on 9 April without carrying out further enquiries into why the vehicle had moved is fault.
20. I consider that Mr Y could also have done more to protect his position. While the letter sent to him said he should remove the vehicle by 9 April, the notice placed on the windscreen indicated he should contact the Council to say the vehicle was not abandoned. Mr Y would have seen the notice when he moved the vehicle.
21. So while I consider both parties could have done more, on balance I consider it was the action of the Council in removing the vehicle that had more implications and so caused a significant injustice to Mr Y.

Agreed action

22. To remedy the injustice caused as a result of the Council’s fault it agrees, within one month of my final decision:
• Contact Mr Y and give him the opportunity to collect his vehicle;
• Write off any storage charges or penalty charges associated with the removal of the vehicle; and
• Review the wording of letters sent to registered owners to ensure it is clear what action the owner should take to avoid removal.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman