Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his request to remove a vehicle from his land which he believed had been abandoned. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice and there is no ongoing problem because the vehicle is no longer there.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to remove a vehicle from his car park which he believed was abandoned. He says the Council caused him time and trouble in pursuing the matter. He says the Council should ensure its website gives accurate information about its responsibilities to remove vehicles.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the Council’s replies to Mr X’s complaints. The information includes a photograph of the vehicle in the car park.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he contacted the Council about the vehicle early in December 2019 and corresponded in the following months. In February he wrote to the Council, having researched the criteria on the Gov.UK website. He suggested the vehicle was unroadworthy and could be removed because it had been left there for a significant amount of time (since November).
5. The Council says officers visited on 18 January and 4 February. They told Mr X that the vehicle did not meet the criteria for removal. They would only remove a vehicle from private land if it were dangerous. They had checked and confirmed the vehicle was taxed and MOT’d. The Council agreed to revisit the car park which it did on 26 February and found the vehicle had gone.
6. Mr X tells me he is concerned that the Council is taking too restrictive an approach to removing vehicles from private land and that its website contains misleading information on what it should do. He wants the Council to have accurate information on its website.
7. The Council’s website says: ‘we have a duty to remove all abandoned vehicles whether they are on private land or not’. It says the criterion for removal includes: ‘how long the vehicle has been left’ and its ‘overall condition’.

Analysis

8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. The Council has not caused Mr X significant injustice by how it dealt with the matter and there is no ongoing problem.
2. The Council’s website information explains its responsibility regarding abandoned vehicles and the need for an assessment on a wide criterion (see paragraph 7 above).

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his request to remove a vehicle from his land which he believed had been abandoned. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice and there is no ongoing problem because the vehicle is no longer there.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman