Summary: We found the Council was not at fault in deciding Mr X’s vehicle was abandoned and removing it from the public highway.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly decided his vehicle was abandoned and removed it. This caused Mr X stress, inconvenience and avoidable time and costs in getting his vehicle back. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for all his costs and losses over the two months it took to get his vehicle back.

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:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• offered to talk to Mr X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared, where possible, the Council’s comments and supporting papers with Mr X; and
• given Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement and considered their responses before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Councils have powers and duties to remove motor vehicles that appear to have been abandoned on open land, including public roads. There is no legal definition of ‘abandoned’ but Government guidance says a vehicle is likely to be abandoned if one or more of the following apply:

• it has no registered keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database and is not taxed;
• 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; or
• a number plate is missing.

6. Once removed, councils must take reasonable steps to keep the vehicle safe unless they decide its condition means it ought to be destroyed. If not immediately destroyed, the law sets out what councils must do before they may dispose of the vehicle. The law also allows councils to charge for dealing with abandoned vehicles.
7. If a council removes a vehicle that has a licence, it should not dispose of it before the licence expires during which time the council should try to find the vehicle owner. If a council is satisfied a person owns a vehicle, it may allow them to take the vehicle away after they pay the removal and storage costs for the vehicle.

What happened

8. Mr X parked his vehicle (‘the Vehicle’) on a road (‘the Road’) near a friend’s house, which house is a considerable distance from his home address. Mr X explains he cannot park on the Road next to his friend’s house because of parking controls (double yellow lines). Mr X describes the Vehicle as tidy, clean, in good order, taxed, insured and with an MOT. Mr X also says he parked considerately. Shortly after parking the Vehicle and visiting his friend, Mr X went travelling abroad, leaving the Vehicle parked near his friend’s house.
9. Mr X says while he was travelling his friend had access to the Vehicle but did not drive it. Mr X says his friend recalls making about six visits to the Vehicle, including to remove a ‘sat nav’.
10. Five weeks after Mr X had parked the Vehicle on the Road, the Council received an ‘abandoned vehicle’ report about the Vehicle.
11. The Council started an investigation sending officers to visit the Road and view the Vehicle. The officers took photographs of the Vehicle and made notes of its condition. Those notes are consistent with Mr X’s description of the Vehicle as set out in paragraph 8 of this statement. The officers also knocked on doors of some nearby properties seeking information about the Vehicle. The Council says no one it approached had information about the Vehicle. Mr X says his friend was in hospital and so there would have been no one at their address when the Council called.
12. The Council sought information about the Vehicle and asked the DVLA for details of the registered keeper. The Council found the Vehicle had road tax and an ‘MOT’. The DVLA also gave the Council Mr X’s name and home address as the registered keeper of the Vehicle.
13. The Council wrote to Mr X at his home address. The Council’s letter said the DVLA’s records showed Mr X was the registered keeper of the Vehicle, which it was looking into as possibly abandoned on the Road. The letter asked Mr X to remove the Vehicle within the next seven days if he was still the registered keeper. And, if he was no longer the registered keeper, to provide details of the person he had passed the Vehicle to. The letter said Mr X risked being liable for the Council’s costs of removing the Vehicle. The letter gave contact details for a Council officer should Mr X want more information.
14. Eight days later and nearly seven weeks after Mr X had parked the Vehicle, the Council told its contractor to tow away the Vehicle. Mr X says his friend’s neighbour, noticing the tow away truck, gave the contractor his friend’s address for the Vehicle owner. The contractor gave the neighbour a document showing the Council had ordered the removal and storage of the vehicle.
15. The Council also wrote to Mr X at his home address. The letter said the Council had ‘deemed the Vehicle abandoned’ and removed it. It would store the Vehicle for a maximum of 14 days after which it might be sold or destroyed. The letter set out the removal and storage costs for the Vehicle and contact details for a Council officer should Mr X want more information.
16. The Council’s records show Mr X made contact three days later. And three weeks after towing away the Vehicle, the Council’s records show payment of its removal and storage costs. The Council says, after paying these costs, Mr X would have been able to collect the Vehicle from its contractor.
17. About eight weeks later, the Council received a letter from Mr X saying what had happened had caused stress and financial cost for no obvious reason. Mr X sought a refund of the £141 Vehicle removal and storage costs and £400 compensation plus interests and costs.
18. More than seven weeks later, the Council replied apologising for its delay. The Council confirmed it had received a report of an abandoned vehicle and visited the site. Its officers had spoken to residents and none knew the owner but confirmed the Vehicle had been in place “for a while”. It had acted properly in writing to him at the address held by the DVLA and asking him to move the Vehicle. On receiving no response to its letter, a senior officer reviewed the case and decided to remove the Vehicle. The Council recognised what happened had caused Mr X distress but said its officers had acted correctly and within their legal powers.

Consideration

19. I recognise Mr X’s dissatisfaction with what happened as he had not abandoned the Vehicle. And yet, my role is to consider whether the Council acted with fault. That the Council may have acted differently or done more does not necessarily mean what it did fell below acceptable administrative standards.
20. There is no definition of ‘abandoned’ in the relevant legislation. So, councils have some discretion here. That a vehicle has road tax and an MOT does not prevent it from being ‘abandoned’. Here, the evidence does not suggest Mr X and the Council held substantively different views about the condition of the Vehicle. And yet, as Government guidance says, the time a vehicle has remained unmoved is relevant to a council’s consideration of whether it may be ‘abandoned’. Here, it was five weeks before anyone contacted the Council suggesting the Vehicle might be abandoned: this is a significant time.
21. The evidence shows the Council then took steps to investigate. Its officers visited the Road and viewed and took photographs of the Vehicle and sought information from nearby residents. And, having received official DVLA confirmation of Mr X’s name and address as registered keeper of the Vehicle, it wrote to him. These are steps I would expect a council to take.
22. I have considered what Mr X says about travelling and so not able to pick up his post. And Mr X’s friend was in hospital when the Council’s officers visited the Road and knocked on peoples’ doors seeking information about the Vehicle. This led to missed opportunities for finding the Vehicle was not abandoned. This is unfortunate, and yet, these missed opportunities are not attributable to any fault by the Council.
23. The evidence shows the Council’s investigation was reasonable and proportionate. I therefore have no good grounds or reason to find the Council acted with fault.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I completed my investigation finding there was no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s Vehicle, which was reported as abandoned.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman