Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing the complainant’s car. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, complaints about alleged damage need to be dealt with by insurers or the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council unlawfully removed his car and failed to return it to the correct location. Mr X alleges the Council damaged the car. Mr X wants an apology and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information from the police. I also considered our Assessment Code, photographs from the Council and Mr X, and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X rents a property to tenants. Mr X lives in another part of the country. The rental property has a parking space where Mr X had parked a SORN car. Someone reported the car to the Council as abandoned. Councils have a duty to remove abandoned cars on private land. Councils can decide a car has been abandoned if it looks run down and has been stationary for some time.
5. The abandoned vehicle report says the car was last taxed in 2008 and had not moved for years. The photographs show the car covered in vegetation, under a low hanging tree, with weeds growing around the wheels.
6. The Council found the rental property. The person living at the property denied any knowledge of the car. Mr X says his tenants know about the car. The Council contacted the police who provided an address for Mr X as the registered keeper; the police provided information from the DVLA saying Mr X lives at number 8. The Council wrote to that address but Mr X lives at number 9. The person at number 8 contacted the Council to say they knew nothing about the car. The Council removed the car in July as it had been unable to contact the owner.
7. Mr X contacted the Council in early August. The Council accepted he had not abandoned the car and issued an instruction not to remove the car. But, it had already been removed. The Council arranged for the car to be returned. The Council apologised for what had happened and said there would be an investigation.
8. Mr X says the Council damaged the car and left it at an angle and not in the parking space. The Council offered to move the car but Mr X declined. Mr X alleges the Council then moved the car again and left it in a different position covering two parking spaces.
9. The Council invited Mr X to make a claim on its insurance for the alleged damage. Mr X has not submitted a claim but wants £3000 for the damage and the cost of moving the car.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has a duty to remove abandoned cars and, having seen the abandoned vehicle report, I can understand why officers thought the car was abandoned. The Council acted appropriately by trying to contact the registered keeper and it is not the Council’s fault it was given the wrong address. It would not be possible to find out what was said when the Council approached the tenant and having a property address for the parking space would not have provided the name of the registered keeper.
11. The Council returned the car after Mr X got in touch and the position it was returned to is not markedly different to where it was taken from. Mr X alleges the Council moved the car a second time and left it in a worse position. The Council denies this and, having examined the photographs, the car merely appears to be in a different position because Mr X took the photo from a different angle and the tree has been removed. In any case, the Council offered to move the car but Mr X declined.
12. The Council apologised and suggested there may be a training need. However, this does not mean we need to start an investigation and I think the comments may have been made before the full facts were known (for example, that the wrong address had been provided).
13. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council returned the car rather than destroying it and the impact on Mr X is limited. If he thinks the Council damaged the car then that is a matter for the courts or insurers. We cannot assess claims for damage and would not be able to establish if the Council caused any damage. Mr X could have also accepted the Council’s offer to move the car to a different position.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, claims of damage are for the courts or insurers.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman