Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have removed his van as abandoned. He also complained about difficulty in contacting the Council. There was fault by the Council. The Council should make a payment to Mr X to reflect that this caused uncertainty about whether the removal of his van could have been avoided. The payment also recognises time and trouble Mr X was put to in making his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council should not have removed his van from the street he lived in because it was not abandoned. He complains there were difficulties contacting the Council before and after the van was removed and the fee the Council wanted him to pay to retrieve the vehicle was unreasonable. Mr X says he lost the van and personal property that was in the van as a result of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I obtained information from the Council and considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In December 2018 the Council received a report that a van had been abandoned in Mr X’s street. The report stated the van appeared in good condition but it had not been moved for three weeks.
7. The Council visited and looked at the van. Officers carried out checks and found it had no tax or MOT. The checks showed Mr X was the registered owner, but the vehicle was registered to an address around 10 miles away. The officers stuck a notice on the van stating it would be removed if no contact was made by 10 January. They also wrote to Mr X at the registered address for the van.
8. Mr X told us he had moved from the address where he registered the van. Unknown to the Council, Mr X now lived in the street where his van was parked.
9. Mr X says he saw the notice stuck to the van on 7 January. He tried to contact the Council but their phone lines were busy and he could not get through. So, on 10 January Mr X says he moved the van around 40 metres down the car park and parked it directly in front of his house.
10. The Council says an officer checked the street on 10 January and noted the van was still there. He arranged for it to be removed on 11 January.
11. The Council wrote to Mr X, as the registered keeper of the van on 11 January. The letter was sent to the registered address for the van. As Mr X no longer lived at the van’s registered address, he did not see the Council’s letter. When Mr X returned from work on 11 January and found the van had gone he called the police. They established the van had been removed by the Council.
12. On 16 January and 17 January Mr X called the Council and left a message for someone to call him back about his van. The call handler noted Mr X’s correct address and phone number at this point.
13. On 17 January Officer A wrote to Mr X at his correct address explaining the action it had taken. It stated the van was in storage and could be collected. He stated Mr X would need to provide proof of ownership and pay a removal charge of £105 and storage charges of £12 per night. The officer stated storage fees would be suspended for seven days to allow for the collection of the van.
14. On 22 January and 30 January Mr X called to speak to the officer.
15. On 30 January, Officer A wrote to Mr X again. He reiterated that to collect the van the removal and storage fees would need to be paid. He stated the seven-day grace period had expired so nightly storage costs would begin to be charged again.
16. On 31 January Mr X called to speak to Officer A again and left a message. Officer A sent Mr X a letter on 6 February. He stated he had constantly tried to return his calls, but his telephone was not answered. He stated Mr X was aware of the procedure to follow to collect his van if he wished to. Mr X called again and left messages stating he was trying to contact Officer A but he had not replied.
17. On 19 February Officer A spoke to Mr X about the situation. Mr X says Officer A was belligerent and rude. He told us Officer A admitted he knew the van had been moved but he removed it anyway. He also stated Officer A told him he was too late to retrieve the van as it had been crushed.
18. Officer A explained that the Council had written to Mr X at the registered address for his van and it Mr X’s responsibility to keep that address up to date. The Council stated Mr X was confrontational when speaking to Officer A and the conversation became heated.
19. Officer A took legal advice and on 28 February he wrote to Mr X to reiterate that he needed to collect his van within seven days or the Council would assume ownership. If that happened, the van and contents would be destroyed. The Council noted the costs were now the removal fee of £105, plus £320 storage costs.
20. On 8 March Mr X complained that the Council had removed his possessions from his property without his consent and he asked the Council to return them. He stated the majority of his calls had not been responded to. He asked for details of Officer A’s manager. Officer A responded on 12 March providing this information. Officer A noted the seven-day notice had ended, and no legitimate claim had been received for the van. As a result, the Council had assumed rights of ownership.
21. In April Mr X complained about the removal of his van. He stated he had difficulty getting through to the Council initially, when the van was stickered. He complained the van was removed as ‘abandoned’ despite him moving the van and parking it directly in front of his property. He also complained about the difficulty contacting the officer dealing with the matter once it had been removed.
22. The Council responded on 17 April. It stated officers had carried out the appropriate checks with the DVLA about the vehicle and obtained Mr X’s name and address as the registered owner and wrote to him there. It removed the vehicle because it had not heard from anyone.
23. The Council addressed the position of the van when it was removed. It checked the photographs on file. The Council acknowledged the van appeared to have been moved further along the parking area since being stickered, but it stated it was still in the same car park. The Council noted that officers did not know it was in front of Mr X’s house, because the address obtained from the DVLA records indicated the owner’s address was around 10 miles away.
24. The Council noted the missed phone calls between Mr X and officers but it stated Mr X had often contacted Officer A outside his working hours. The Council noted there was no facility to leave a message on Mr X’s phone when calling back, but the Council wrote to him at his correct address on many occasions to set out how to collect his van. The Council stated, as Mr X had not presented proof of ownership and collected his van, the van and its contents were destroyed on 14 March. The Council considered it acted correctly in line with its policy.
25. A manager reviewed Mr X’s complaint in May 2019 and wrote to Mr X. He was satisfied the Council had not acted improperly. However, he had found Mr X’s van was still with the contractor and had not yet been destroyed. He stated it could be returned to Mr X if he paid the appropriate charges. Alternatively, Mr X could collect the vehicle contents from the Council’s depot. The Council stated Mr X did not make contact to take up either option.
26. The Council responded further to Mr X’s complaint in June 2019. It found that the matter had been handled lawfully and Mr X had been given reasonable opportunity to retrieve his van and the contents. In respect of communication, the Council acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about Officer A’s availability on the telephone, given he worked part time hours. However, it noted the Council had written to Mr X on numerous occasions and had attempted to respond to his calls. It also noted Mr X could email Officer A and other staff were able to respond to or pass on messages and answer queries. The Council stated Mr X’s vehicle had now been sent for destruction.

The Law and Government Guidance

27. Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gives the council the power to remove vehicles they believe to be abandoned.
28. Government guidance states that when deciding if a vehicle is abandoned, councils should take account of whether it has been stationary for a significant period of time, if it has a registered owner, if the vehicle is taxed, the condition of the vehicle and/or whether the vehicle is roadworthy.
29. The guidance states councils may dispose of an abandoned vehicle provided they have given the owner seven says notice to collect it, no-one claims it or the owner fails to comply with a notice to collect the vehicle.

Council Policy

30. The Council policy sets out what factors it considers when deciding if a vehicle is abandoned. These align with government guidance. It considers if a vehicle is in a dangerous condition, has no vehicle tax, appears not to be in use and has not moved for some time or if it has no apparent value.
31. The Council states if the vehicle has some value, a removal notice will be attached to it and a seven-day notice will be served on the registered keeper. If it remains unclaimed the vehicle will be disposed of.

Was there fault by the Council

32. I found no fault in the Council’s original assessment that the van may be abandoned. The van had been reported to be stationary for more than three weeks and enquiries indicated it had no valid road tax or MOT. So, its decision to apply a sticker and to write to the registered owner were actions that were appropriate and in line with the Council’s policy.
33. When the Council wrote to Mr X as the registered owner of the van, it wrote to the address he provided by the DVLA. This was correct. As Mr X had moved he did not get the letter. However, he saw the sticker and this alerted him to the fact the Council considered the van abandoned. Mr X did not inform the Council the van was not abandoned because the Council phone lines were busy. However, telephone lines to councils or other organisations can be busy. This is not fault.
34. Although Mr X had not spoken to anyone at the Council, he did move the van. The evidence indicates the van was moved from one end of the parking area to the other. He parked the van in front of his current address. The van had moved a significant distance, sufficient to be noticeable in my view. However, officers would not reasonably have been aware that the van’s new position was directly in front of Mr X’s house because the registered address for the vehicle was 10 miles away.
35. The fact that the van was moved is significant. Councils have the legal power to remove vehicles that they believe to be abandoned. As the van had been moved I found it was no longer reasonable to consider it abandoned. The fact that the van was parked elsewhere in the car park should have led the Council to think again, and to make further enquiries before removing it.
36. However, Mr X’s actions also played a part in what happened. It is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to keep the registered address for a vehicle up to date. If the registered address had been correct, the Council would have been aware the van was actually parked close to Mr X’s home. This may have led officers to reach a different view about its removal.
37. So, I consider it was fault for the Council to ignore the fact that the van had moved and not to make any additional enquiries before removing it. However, I do not consider the fault by the Council was solely responsible for the removal of the van. The inaccurate registered address also played a part in this.

What happened as a result of the fault

38. Because the Council removed Mr X’s van, he was told he would have to pay a recovery fee and storage costs to collect it. I am satisfied the Council provided clear information to Mr X about how he could collect the van which was sent to Mr X at his correct address. It was therefore open to Mr X to collect the van and his belongings if he wished to. When dealing with Mr X’s complaint it afforded him another opportunity to collect the van. Because Mr X did not collect the van and his belongings, they were later destroyed.
39. I recognise Mr X did not consider he should have to pay a fee to retrieve his van, however, as I say in paragraph 37, it was not solely as a result of the fault by the Council that the van was removed. Once it was removed, Mr X had opportunities to collect his van, so on balance, I found that the loss of the van was not directly attributable to the fault in the Council’s actions.
40. The Council has confirmed that Mr X’s belongings have not been destroyed. They are still at the Council’s depot. These can still be collected by Mr X, without charge.
41. Overall, I consider there is some uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different, and Mr X was put to the time and trouble of raising a complaint about the matter. So, I do consider the Council should make a payment to recognise this. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £750.
42. I recognise that Mr X had difficulty reaching Officer A at times, and Officer A had difficulty reaching Mr X. However, the Council did respond to Mr X and explained how he could retrieve his van. There were difficulties in contact due to Officer A’s working hours and Mr X’s ability to respond to phone calls due to his job.

Agreed action

43. To recognise the time and trouble Mr X was put to in making his complaint and the uncertainty that the outcome may have been different but for the fault by the Council, the Council agreed to pay Mr X £750 within four weeks of this decision.
44. The Council has confirmed Mr X may collect the belongings that were found in his van from its depot. These should be made available to Mr X for at least six weeks from the date of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

45. There was fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman