Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly removed and scrapped his vehicle when it was not abandoned. The Council was not at fault for removing the vehicle. However, the Council failed to follow its policy before destroying it. An apology to Mr B, payment to reflect the value of the vehicle and to address the inconvenience he was put to, along with a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council wrongly removed and scrapped his vehicle when it was not abandoned. Mr B says as a result he has been unable to operate his business in the usual way and has lost work as well as no longer having the vehicle. Mr B says his mental health has suffered.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mr B and the organisation 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

What should have happened

6. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (the Act) says where it appears to a local authority that a motor vehicle in their area is abandoned it shall be the duty of the authority, subject to various provisions, to remove the vehicle.
7. For disposal of removed vehicles the Act says if a local authority considers a removed vehicle is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed or where it does not display a registration mark, it can arrange disposal at any time after its removal.
8. For all other cases the Act says destruction can take place at any time after the local authority have taken such steps as may be prescribed to find a person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle and either:
• (i)they have failed to find such a person, or
• (ii)he has failed to comply with a notice served on him in the prescribed manner by the local authority requiring him to remove the vehicle within the prescribed period from their custody.
9. The Council’s abandoned vehicle policy (the policy) sets out the process the Council has to follow when assessing whether a vehicle is to be treated as abandoned under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. That includes the following factors:
• it has no current keeper on DVLA's database and/or is untaxed;
• it has no valid MOT;
• it is unlocked;
• it appears to have been stationary for a significant amount of time, for example where mould is forming on parts of the vehicle;
• it has been significantly damaged;
• it has been burned out;
• it has been hotwired;
• there is an accumulation of assorted articles, including objects/materials that may have been waste inside it;
• it does not appear to be driveable for any other reason;
• the number plate(s) is/are missing or not securely affixed to the vehicle;
• enquiries with neighbours indicate it has just appeared or been in situ without moving for a long time and no one in the locality claims ownership.
10. The policy makes clear it does not matter if the vehicle is actually abandoned or not. It says an authorised officer only needs to believe it has been abandoned in order to require it to be removed under the legislation and dealt with accordingly.
11. The policy says for vehicles on a highway the Council can either remove the vehicle immediately if it is deemed abandoned or apply an informal seven-day notice. The seven-day notice gives the owner an opportunity to remove the vehicle. The Council can remove vehicles immediately though if it deems them to be hazardous.
12. The policy says if the Council removes a vehicle it can arrange for the disposal of it immediately if either of the following conditions apply:
• it is only fit to be destroyed; or
• it has no numberplates or is untaxed.
13. The policy says if the Council can identify and locate the owner of an abandoned vehicle it will give them seven days written notice to collect the vehicle before the Council disposes of it. The Council can then return the vehicle to its owner providing they pay the costs of removal and storage.
14. The policy says if the Council cannot identify or locate the owner or the owner fails to comply with a notice to collect the vehicle the Council can dispose of the vehicle. For disposal the Council can either sell the vehicle at auction or have it destroyed at an authorised facility.
15. The policy sets out the other options available to the Council which include taking legal action or issuing a fixed penalty notice.

What happened

16. Mr B had two vans which he used for work purposes. Mr B says he employs members of staff and he used both vans on some of his jobs. He also used the second van to visit sites to quote for work.
17. On 15 October 2020 the Council asked one of its officers to visit Mr B’s road as it had identified several vehicles which had been there for a number of weeks and appeared to have been abandoned. That included one of Mr B’s vans. The Council also contacted the DVLA and obtained an address for Mr B. That was Mr B’s previous address. Mr B says he had notified DVLA of his new address but had not received a new V5 for the vehicle. Mr B assumes this was due to delays during COVID-19.
18. An officer placed a seven-day notice on Mr B’s van on 15 October. The notice advised the Council believed the vehicle had been abandoned illegally which allowed the Council to remove the vehicle on expiry of the notice. The notice said the vehicle would be removed as soon as the notice expired and may subsequently be destroyed. Mr B could not see the notice on the vehicle from his property and says the person that normally used the vehicle for work purposes was on annual leave that week. That vehicle therefore did not move.
19. On 16 October the Council wrote to Mr B at the address provided by DVLA to inform him it considered his vehicle abandoned. The letter noted the vehicle was taxed and MOT’d. The letter asked Mr B to contact the Council to claim the vehicle and remove it from the location within seven days. The letter advised if Mr B did not do that the vehicle may be removed and disposed of, he may be issued with a fixed penalty notice or face prosecution and may have to pay for the cost of removal and storage.
20. As the Council had received no contact from Mr B it removed the van and its contractor destroyed it on the same day.
21. Mr B noticed that his van had disappeared on 26 October and contacted the police. He subsequently became aware the Council had removed the van. Mr B therefore contacted the abandoned vehicles team at the Council on 27 October. The Council told Mr B it had scrapped his van.

Analysis

22. Mr B says the Council wrongly removed and scrapped his vehicle when it was not abandoned. Mr B says the vehicle was fully taxed and MOT’d, was well maintained and had clear signs of being in use as there was fresh woodchip on the back. Mr B denies the van was unlocked at the time and that there was waste in the van, as claimed by the Council.
23. I cover in paragraph 9 the process the Council has to follow when it identifies a vehicle it believes has been abandoned. In this case I am satisfied the Council followed the policy correctly in removing the vehicle. While I appreciate the vehicle was taxed and MOT’d those are only two of the tests the Council considers. In this case the Council considered the vehicle abandoned as it had been in the same location for some time, was unlocked and appeared to have waste in it. As I say in paragraph 10, the Council only has to have reason to believe that a vehicle is abandoned to remove it. I therefore do not criticise the Council for removing Mr B’s vehicle in this case.
24. I am, however, concerned about the Council’s decision to immediately destroy the vehicle when it was removed. The Council’s policy makes clear when it removes a vehicle it can arrange for the disposal of the vehicle if it is only fit to be destroyed or if it has no numberplates or is untaxed. I do not consider those tests applied here. Nor is there any evidence the Council took that view. I therefore consider the Council should have followed its policy at that point and written to Mr B to give him a seven days written notice to collect the vehicle before the Council disposed of it. The Council did not do that and instead immediately destroyed the vehicle. I recognise the Council sent the seven-day notice the day after it placed the notice on Mr B’s vehicle. However, I am satisfied under the Council’s policy and under the Act referred to in paragraph 8 the written seven-day notice should be issued to the owner of the vehicle when the vehicle is removed and is in the Council’s custody. The Council did not do that here. So, I am not satisfied the Council followed its policy or the provisions of the Act in this case. That is fault.
25. I recognise even if the Council had sent Mr B a seven-day written notice at the point at which it removed his vehicle Mr B would not have received that notice because he had moved address. However, the documentary evidence shows Mr B contacted the Council within three days of the vehicle being removed as he had noticed his vehicle was missing. Had the Council followed its policy and issued the seven-day notice when it removed Mr B’s vehicle the Council would therefore still have had the vehicle in its possession and Mr B could have paid the storage fees to have the vehicle released. I therefore consider Mr B has suffered a significant injustice as a result of the Council’s failure to follow its policy.
26. When considering an appropriate remedy for a complaint the Ombudsman seeks to put the person complaining back in the position they would have been in, but for the fault. I consider in this case if the Council had followed its policy properly Mr B would not have lost his vehicle. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise and pay Mr B an amount equivalent to the value of the van at the point it was removed, less the costs of removal. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
27. Mr B also says he lost tools which were stored in the van and as he was unable to employ the same number of people with only one van he lost £13,000 in income. I have no evidence of what was in the van when it was removed and it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish whether the loss of income relates purely to the loss of Mr B’s van and not also to other factors, particularly during the COVID-19 restrictions. I therefore recommended that in addition to paying Mr B an amount equivalent to the value of the van at the point it was removed the Council also pay Mr B an additional £500 to reflect the inconvenience he was put to and the time and trouble he has spent pursuing his complaint. The Council has agreed to that recommendation. If Mr B wants to pursue the lost property from the van or loss of income further he can make an insurance claim against the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B;
• pay Mr B £500;
• send a copy of the Ombudsman’s final decision in this case to officers dealing with abandoned vehicles so they are aware of the process required when a vehicle is removed from the highway.
29. Within two months of my decision the Council should arrange for an independent assessor to establish the cost of providing Mr B with a van of similar age, quality and fittings as the one it wrongly destroyed. The Council should then pay this sum to Mr B within one month of the independent value assessment, less any removal costs Mr B would have been liable for.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman