Summary: The Ombudsman considers there is no evidence of fault by the Council when it identified that Mrs X’s car was abandoned.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council was at fault when it identified her husband’s car as abandoned because it did not notify him or follow the correct procedures. Kent County Council subsequently destroyed the car, and the contents.

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 have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In September 2018 the Council received a report about an abandoned car parked on a grass verge. The Council’s officers inspected the car, which belonged to Mr X. It decided it was abandoned and, because it was damaged, it should be removed by Kent County Council, the waste disposal authority within 24 hours.
6. The Council considered that the car had not moved for some time because grass was growing through the wheels. The Council also noted that there was damage to the front bumper and the bonnet, and the front grille of the car was missing. The Council said the car was untaxed and it had no MOT.
7. The Council requested Kent remove the car on 28 September 2018. It did not place a removal notice on the car.
8. Mrs X says she saw a removal vehicle taking the car a few days later but did not have time to stop the driver. She thought the car had been stolen. She contacted the Police to report this. She says the Police had not received a report that the Council had removed the car.
9. A few days later Kent County Council decided the car was abandoned and dangerous and it destroyed it.
10. Mrs X found out the car had been destroyed after she contacted the Council to check if it removed the car. It confirmed that Kent had removed the car after it had advised that the car was abandoned.
11. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council that it was wrong to decide the car was abandoned. They said the Council did not follow procedure or the code of practice. They confirmed the car was not taxed and the MOT had expired. But they said the car was not dangerous and was in good order aside from minor damage to the front grille. It had been parked on the verge for a short period while they completed access works to their home. They said there was no warning letter or notice. They believed a neighbour maliciously reported that it was abandoned because they said there was a history disputes with the neighbour.
12. The Council replied that officers from its Waste Crime Team inspected the car after receiving a report. The Council had noted it was untaxed, had no MOT and had damage to the front and a broken grille. It appeared that it had not moved for significant period of time. Therefore, it considered that the car was abandoned because it met criteria for this. The car was destroyed by Kent shortly afterwards. When Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council, it referred the matter to its insurers who rejected Mr X’s claim because it said the car had met the criteria for an abandoned vehicle.
13. Mr and Mrs X complained further that the Council should have notified them and the car did not meet the government criteria for an abandoned car. The guidance said that a Council can decide abandonment if at least one of the following applied:
• its condition clearly showed it had not moved in some time
• it has no keeper on DVLA’s database and is untaxed
• it is stationary for a significant amount of time
• it is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy - for example, has flat tyres, missing wheels or broken windows
• it is burned out
• a number plate is missing
14. Mr and Mrs X said the car did not meet any of these criteria, and in any case the Council should not have destroyed the vehicle immediately unless it was only fit to be destroyed or it had no number plates or tax disc.
15. The Council replied that when officers inspected the car it met at least two of the criteria because it had been stationary for some time due to the grass growing through the wheels, and it had no grille, and a damaged bonnet and bumper. Further checks showed the car was untaxed and had no MOT. In the Council’s view the car was abandoned. The Council explained that Kent County Council then assessed the car should be destroyed, which it did shortly afterwards.

Analysis

16. Councils have a duty to remove abandoned vehicles from land in the open air (including private land) and roads. In deciding whether a vehicle is abandoned, Councils should consider government guidance available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/abandoned-vehicles-council-responsibilities.
17. Mr and Mrs X believe the car did not meet any of the criteria for abandonment. However, it appears the Council considered the guidance and as it explained in its responses the car met at least two of the criteria, as well as having no tax or current MOT. The guidance says it is likely a car may be abandoned if at least one of the criteria is met. It is not necessary for a car to meet all the criteria, and Council officers have the freedom to use their discretion when making a decision on abandonment. I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision, and so as I explain in paragraph 2, the Ombudsman cannot question the decision.
18. Mrs X says the Council should not have taken account of information they believe it received from a malicious neighbour. However, the Council had a duty to consider the report of an abandoned vehicle and having inspected the car it made its own assessment. I have not found fault here.
19. Mrs X says the Council should have notified them it intended to remove and destroy the car. However, the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005, removed the requirement for a Council to notify the owner, where a car is deemed fit for destruction. The Council could arrange removal immediately, as it did in this case. I have not found fault here.
20. Mrs X says the Council admitted it made mistakes. She says that an officer advised that a 15 day notice should have been placed on the car but then retracted this statement. The Council has confirmed that an officer said a notice would have been applied, if a 15 day warning was required. However, as immediate removal was required, no notice was applied. I have not found evidence of fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman