Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint the Council removed his trailer from outside his house, caused damage to the trailer and then destroyed it. Further consideration of parts of the complaint is unlikely to find fault. And the courts are better placed to decide if the Council is liable to Mr D for the damage to his trailer.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr D, says the Council removed a trailer that was parked on a grass verge outside his home even though it knew Mr D was the owner. Mr D also complains he could not then collect the trailer from storage because it had been damaged and was unroadworthy. Mr D wanted the Council to repair the trailer so he could retrieve it from storage, but the Council then destroyed it.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr D provided when he made his complaint and information provided by the Council. I sent a draft decision to Mr D and invited comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr D had parked his trailer on a grass verge on the opposite side of the road to his house. The grass verge forms part of the highway.
6. The Council placed a notice on the trailer saying it considered it was abandoned. Mr D complains the Council did not specify a date on the notice by which he had to move the trailer, and officers knew the trailer belonged to him anyway.
7. The Council then arranged for the removal of the trailer and it was taken to a storage unit. Mr D says that when he went to visit the storage unit he noticed the trailer had been damaged and he could not tow it away again as it was not roadworthy.
8. Between July 2018 and April 2019, the trailer remained at the storage unit and there was ongoing correspondence between Mr D and the Council about the condition of the trailer. Mr D wanted the Council to carry out repairs to make the trailer roadworthy so he could remove it. The Council told Mr D the trailer was not roadworthy when it was collected and declined to carry out repairs. In April 2019 the Council arranged for the disposal of the trailer.
9. Government guidance ( available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/abandoned-vehicles-council-responsibilities ) says the normal 15 day notice period before removing an abandoned vehicle does not apply if a vehicle is abandoned on a road or highway. As the trailer was on highway land, there are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council for not setting a date by which Mr D had to remove the trailer.
10. Mr D challenges the Council’s view that the trailer was abandoned, as he says officers knew it belonged to him. The government guidance says a vehicle is likely to be abandoned if at least one of the following applies:
• It has no keeper on DVLA’s database and is untaxed
• It’s stationary for a significant amount of time
• It’s significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy – for example has flat tyres, missing wheels or broken windows
• it's burned out
• a number plate is missing
11. The Council’s view was Mr D’s trailer was unroadworthy and was illegally parked on the highway. There are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the way the Council reached that decision as satellite images from Google Street view show the trailer was parked there in May 2018. And officers viewed the trailer and its condition before placing the notice on it and then removing it.
12. The Ombudsman cannot reach a view on whether the Council is liable for any damage to Mr D’s trailer. If Mr D considers the Council is responsible for any damage and seeks financial compensation for this, it is reasonable to expect him to use his right of remedy in the courts.
13. The government guidance says local authorities must give owners of vehicles seven days’ written notice to collect a vehicle before they can dispose of it. If an owner claims their vehicle and pays the costs of removal and storage then the local authority must return the vehicle.
14. The Council retained Mr D’s trailer for over eight months before it was destroyed. By this time over £4500 in storage costs had accrued. The Council has removed these fees in acknowledgement of Mr D’s serious health conditions.
15. Further consideration of a complaint about the Council’s decision to destroy the trailer is unlikely to find fault by the Council. The Council retained the trailer for considerably longer than it was required to and has not charged the storage fees to Mr D.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of parts of the complaint is unlikely to find fault and the courts are better placed to decide if the Council is liable for the damage to Mr D’s trailer.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman