Summary: Miss X complained the Council was wrong to remove and dispose of her vehicle. She considered the Council’s actions to be discriminatory. We found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly removed her vehicle and ignored the fact that the vehicle was SORN and not driven on public roads. She complains the Council made no attempt to communicate or contact her about its decision to remove the vehicle or when dealing with her complaint.
2. Miss X also complained the Council’s actions amounted to harassment, victimisation and racial discrimination.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I considered the complaint from Miss X and the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its policy, the law and the information it provided.
6. Miss 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

The law & relevant regulations

Operation Crackdown

7. The Council is acting in partnership with the Police to tackle abandoned vehicles in its area. It stated the partnership with the police is called Operation Crackdown.
8. The Council stated the legislation it relied on when removing Mrs X’s car comes from Road Traffic Act 1984 and Clean Neighbourhoods & Environmental Act 2005.
9. The Council says its approach is to carry out desk-based checks to find out if a car is taxed and has an MOT. If not, a location visit is made and if the car is there, a sticker is placed giving the driver 14 days to contact the Council.
10. If no contact is made, the Council ask the Police for the details of the registered keeper and a letter is sent to them. It asks for the car to be removed in 7 days. If no contact is made following the letter to the registered keeper and the vehicle remains in place, the Council requests its removal by the police. The Council says decisions about removal are taken on the authority of the police.

The Road Traffic Act 1984 (RTRA 1984)

11. Section 99 of the RTRA 1984 states the secretary of state may, by regulations, make provision for the removal of vehicles on roads or other land that a) contravene a statutory restriction, b) cause an obstruction or danger to others, or c) appear by condition or circumstances appear to be abandoned.
12. Part Three, Section Five of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations (1986) sets out what powers Local Authorities have to remove vehicles. It states that Local Authorities have the power to remove vehicles that it appears have broken down or appear to have been abandoned.
13. The Council stated that officers must consider various factors when deciding if a vehicle is abandoned:
• It has no keeper on DVLA’s database and is untaxed.
• It has been stationary for a significant amount of time.
• It is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy (e.g. flat tyres, missing wheels, broken windows).
• It is burned out.
• A number plate is missing.

The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

14. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act gives the Council the power to remove a motor vehicle from any land if it has been abandoned without lawful authority. The Act requires a council to give notice to the occupier of the land in question that they propose to remove the vehicle. The Act says a council ‘shall not be entitled to remove the vehicle if [the occupier] objects.
15. Section 3(5) states that if a council considers the condition of the vehicle is such that it should be destroyed, they must fix a notice to the vehicle stated that the council proposes to remove and destroy it.
16. Section 4 states that if the Council removes a vehicle to which it fixed a notice required by Section 3(5), and it has no current licence it may dispose of the vehicle as it sees fit. If it has not fixed the notice on the vehicle required under Section 3(5), before disposing of the vehicle, a council must first take steps as prescribed to find the owner of the vehicle. If they fail to do so or the owner fails to comply with a notice served on the owner requiring the car to be collected from custody.

Statutory Off-Road Notification (SORN) Rules

17. Government guidance on SORN states that if someone intends to take a vehicle ‘off the road’ and wants to stop taxing and insuring it, they need to make a SORN declaration to the DVLA.
18. The guidance states that a vehicle is classed as being ‘off the road’ if it is not kept or used on a public road, for example if it is in a garage, on a driveway or on private land.

What Happened

19. In 2020 Miss X moved to a new property. She was told by her landlord she could park a vehicle in a parking area outside the property. Although Miss X had a car, and parked it in the parking area, she did not drive it. Miss X had completed a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) because the car was untaxed.
20. In October 2021 the Council received a report from a member of the public stating they believed the car had been abandoned. After the Council visited, Miss X found a sticker on her car. It stated the Council believed the car to be abandoned.
21. Mrs X called the Council and discussed the situation. She provided a recording of the call. Mrs X told the Council she had made a SORN declaration and explained she lived where the car was parked. She gave her address. The officer advised Miss X that the registered owner’s address for the car needed to be updated at the DVLA.
22. In the call the officer explained that the land Mrs X was parked on was public land. It said cars with an MOT which were fully taxed and insured could be parked there, but SORN vehicles could not. This is because the rules around SORN required them to be off road, and on private not public land. The officer suggested a driveway or garden. The officer stated, as Mrs X had called, she would ‘take it off the system’ and not treat it as abandoned or take it away. Miss X stated she would look into the situation.
23. Miss X says she was ill at the time. However, she did some brief online searches and decided it was unlikely that extreme action would be taken and she was satisfied with the legal safety of the car and where it was.
24. In May 2022 the Council received another report that the car had been abandoned. Officers visited and they placed further stickers on the car. They provided photographs to evidence of this. They also wrote to the registered owner, at the address that the DVLA held.
25. Miss X again called the Council and was again told that the car had been stickered because it still had no MOT or insurance and SORN vehicles could not be parked on the Council’s land as that was public, not private land. Miss X stated she would consult a solicitor because she found the Council’s approach amounted to harassment on the basis of her name or the colour of her skin.
26. The Council stated in July 2022, because the car remained in the same place, and had no tax, insurance or MOT, the Council sought permission from the police to remove it. The police granted permission for the car to be removed. This did not happen immediately due to a lack of availability of removal workers.
27. In August the Council received a complaint from a member of the public that the car was still parked at the same location.
28. In September 2022 contractors returned and removed the car. It was the Council who arranged the car’s removal. At the time of the removal the registered owner’s address had not been updated, the car was SORN, but not insured and had no MOT. It remained on public land. The Council noted the warning sticker had been removed.
29. The Council’s procedures are to hold vehicles for 7 days before they take further action. If no contact is made, they are destroyed. The vehicle was destroyed on 20 October.
30. Miss X contacted the Council on 23 October when she found the car missing. She made a complaint. Miss X stated the Council had removed her car from in front of her building even though she had been told by her landlord she could park a car there. She stated she had made a SORN declaration, and she considered the Council’s actions amounted to harassment, and discrimination on the basis of her race.
31. The Council initially explained the actions it had taken had been because multiple stickers had been left on the vehicle and letters had been sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. It stated no-one claimed the vehicle and as the correct procedures were followed, the council was not at fault.
32. In response to further information provided by Mrs X the Council listened to a recording of the initial call Miss X had with an officer in October 2021. In its final response to the complaint the Council explained its view. The Council noted the officer explained a SORN vehicle could not be parked on public land. The officer also explained where Miss X was parked was public land. The officer told Miss X that she needed to update the registered address for the vehicle. None of this had been done by Miss X.
33. The Council acknowledged, in the call in 2021, the officer could have been more specific about what action would be taken if Miss X left the car there, rather than stating only that they would remove it from the records. The Council stated it would take some action to make messages clearer in future.
34. While the Council acknowledged the officer could have been clearer in 2021, it did not consider it was at fault for removing the vehicle in 2022. It noted Miss X had failed to update DVLA records, the car was still not insured and it had not been moved since it was first inspected in 2021. The Council noted Miss X had not taken any steps to address the issues outlined in the original telephone call. So, the Council considered the vehicle was ‘abandoned’ and it was being allowed to deteriorate on council land. The Council noted the vehicle’s last valid MOT expired in 2019 and the vehicle had not had valid road tax since at least October 2021. The Council stated its decision that the car should be removed was confirmed by Sussex Police. The Council did not agree that removing the car was wrong.
35. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman because she was dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

Was there fault by the Council

The Council’s actions in 2021

36. When the Council received reports that the car appeared to be an abandoned vehicle, it carried out checks on the ownership, Tax and MOT status. Because Miss X had not told the DVLA she had moved, their records suggested the registered owner lived some distance from where the car was parked. The car also had no MOT or Insurance. As a result, the Council had good reason to suspect the car was abandoned.
37. The action the Council took to sticker the car gave notice that the Council believed it was abandoned and its intention was to remove it. I understand the Council also wrote to the registered keeper’s address provided by the DVLA. The action the Council took was appropriate and in keeping with its policy.
38. I recognise that Miss X spoke to the Council and explained the car was hers, and that she lived there now. In this call the Council was clear that SORN vehicles could not be kept where Miss X’s car was parked but agreed to take no action at the time. Miss X stated she would look into the situation. The officer could have been clearer that action may be taken at a later date if the car remained there, but given it did not remove the car at that time, I found no fault in the way the Council dealt with the situation in 2021.

The Council’s actions 2022

39. The Council received further abandonment reports about the car from members of the public in 2022. It was required to consider these reports and act upon them. Although Miss X called the Council again in May 2022, she still did not move the vehicle or act on the issues the Council had raised.
40. As there was contact between Miss X and the Council after it placed stickers on her car, I considered whether this contact affected whether the Council still had powers to remove Miss X’s car as an ‘abandoned’ vehicle. After careful consideration, I found that the Council was still entitled to remove the car, despite her telephone calls. I say this because, although Miss X had made contact to explain the car was hers, the Council had explained why her car could not be parked there and why it was treating it as ‘abandoned’ or ‘unlawfully parked’. Miss X had not acted on the issues the Council had set out. i.e. the car remained untaxed (and could not remain on council land as a SORN vehicle), it was not insured, it had no MOT and it had not been moved.
41. The Council has the power to remove a vehicle when it is abandoned or parked without lawful authority. As the factors used to consider whether a car is ‘abandoned’ in law had not been addressed by Miss X, I found there was no fault in the Council removing the vehicle.
42. I appreciate that it was upsetting for Miss X to find that the car had been disposed of. It was unfortunate that Miss X did not notice the vehicle had been removed before this happened. However, the Council kept the vehicle for the required amount of time before it destroyed it. So, it was not fault that the Council disposed of the vehicle when it did.
43. The Council sent notification to Miss X several times during the process by writing to the address held by the DVLA. While it was aware of Miss X’s new address when she called in 2021 and 2022, I found it was not fault for the Council to write to the address held by the DVLA. Motorists are required to maintain the correct registered address for the vehicle by law. As a result, I found the Council were entitled to rely on the DVLA correspondence address.
44. Miss X complained that the Council’s actions were harassment and racially motivated. It seems evident the Council was acting on reports from the public and it was engaged in a joint project with the police to clear abandoned vehicles. Given the evidence showing why the Council acted, I am satisfied that the Council’s grounds for acting were clear. It was following its usual policies for dealing with an abandoned vehicle, rather than harassing Miss X.
45. For the reasons I set out above I did not find fault in the Council’s actions and I do not consider there is evidence the Council treated Miss X differently because of her race.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was no 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