Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to remove and destroy his two cars without contacting him. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to double check the condition of one of Mr X’s cars, and when its contractor destroyed both Mr X’s cars before the Council notified him of their removal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to remove and destroy his two cars without contacting him. He said both cars were taxed, held a valid Ministry of Transport (MOT) test certificate, and were parked in a private car park. He said he pays rent to the Council for one of the parking spaces.
2. Mr X said he suffered financially and had to hire a car for a few months. He also suffered emotional distress because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. 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

Legislation and guidance

8. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Removal and Disposal of Vehicle (England) Regulations 1986 (as amended) set out the legal framework for the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles.
9. Councils have powers and duties to remove motor vehicles that appear to have been abandoned on open land, including public roads. There is no legal definition of ‘abandoned’ but Government guidance says a vehicle is likely to be abandoned if one or more of the following apply:
• it has no registered keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database and is not taxed.
• it is stationary for a significant amount of time.
• it is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy, for example, has flat tyres, missing wheels or broken windows.
• it is burned out.
• a number plate is missing.
10. If a council decides a vehicle is abandoned, it can dispose of it immediately if:
• It is only fit to be destroyed.
• It has no number plates or tax disc.
11. In all other cases, councils must try to find the owner.

The Council’s policy

12. The Council’s policy places abandoned vehicles into two classifications, Class A and Class B. Each classification has a different procedure.
13. Class A is for vehicles which are taxed or untaxed with significant damage, wrecked, or burnt out. Officers should make enquiries about whether the vehicle is the subject of police involvement or an insurance claim. If not, an officer will arrange immediate removal for destruction.
14. Class B is for vehicles which are untaxed, unregistered, stationary for 30 days, lacking a number plate, or containing waste. Officers should fix a notice to the vehicle and submit details to the DVLA for enquiries. If a registered keeper is found, they will be asked to move the vehicle. If there is no response from the registered keeper, the vehicle will be removed and stored. If not claimed, it will be destroyed.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint.
16. Before this complaint, Mr X owned two vehicles. I will call them Vehicle One and Vehicle Two.
17. Included in the lease agreement for his home, Mr X has a parking space in a Council car park. Mr X also rented a second parking space from the Council in the same car park.
18. A Council officer (who I will call Officer A) inspected Vehicle One on 17 May 2022, following a routine visit to the car park. Officer A noted Vehicle One had significant front-end damage and they did not consider the car was roadworthy. They took photographs as evidence but did not report the car as abandoned at that time.
19. A second Council officer (who I will call Officer B) received a phone call on about 25 July 2022 from a resident. The resident told Officer B there were two damaged cars in the car park which had been there for “some time”.
20. Officer B visited the car park on 27 July 2022. They noted Vehicle One had significant front-end damage, with a missing bumper, broken headlight, and buckled wing and bonnet. Officer B took photographs of Vehicle One as evidence.
21. Officer B noted Vehicle Two had “minor” front end damage, with a broken headlight, “minor” dent to the wing, and “slight” dent to the bumper. Officer B could not take photographs of the front of Vehicle Two as it was parked too close to a wall.
22. Officer B then carried out checks on both cars. They found Vehicle One was insured but could not find details on the DVLA database.
23. Officer B found details for Vehicle Two, but its tax and MOT test certificate were out of date. Vehicle Two was also insured.
24. Officer B considered both cars had been abandoned and forwarded details to the Council’s contact centre for investigation.
25. Officer B visited the car park again on 5 August 2022 and noted the Council’s contractor had not yet removed Mr X’s vehicles. The officer therefore reported the details again.
26. The Council’s contractor removed and destroyed Mr X’s vehicles on 10 August 2022.
27. Mr X complained to the Council on 5 September 2022. He said the Council removed and destroyed his two cars without warning. He said both cars had an MOT test certificate and tax. He asked for compensation.
28. The Council responded on 22 September. It said:
• It has a duty to remove abandoned vehicles and it is up to officers to decide whether a vehicle is abandoned.
• Abandoned vehicles fall within two categories. In this case, it removed Mr X’s vehicles under Class A.
• Its anti-social behaviour (ASB) team received a report from an officer on 27 July 2022. Mr X’s vehicles both had front end damage and he appeared to use them to store items or waste, and neither had tax or an MOT test certificate.
• Mr X’s vehicles met the criteria of Class A, so the Council passed details to its contractor for immediate removal and destruction within 24 hours.
• It did not have to fix a notice to Mr X’s vehicles.
• The Council’s contractors attended on 10 August 2022 to remove the vehicles and destroy them.
29. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He said the Council removed his cars unlawfully and it was untrue to say they both had damage. He said Vehicle Two passed its MOT test on 3 August 2022 and it held insurance. He said he parked his cars in a private car park which he pays for.
30. The Council sent its final complaint response on 26 October. It said there was no fault with the process it followed, so it would not compensate Mr X.

My investigation

31. Mr X told me Vehicle One had a mechanical fault. He stored it in the car park while he tried to carry out repairs. To do so, Mr X removed the front bumper so he could access the engine. He placed cardboard covering the front of the vehicle to prevent damage.
32. Mr X gave me evidence he renewed Vehicle One’s tax on 1 August 2022. However, Mr X put a personal registration plate on the car and did not tell the DLVA. The Council was therefore unable to trace it.
33. Mr X said he bought Vehicle Two in the middle or the end of June 2022. The only damage was a radiator leak which he had fixed at a garage. Its MOT test certificate had expired, but I have seen evidence Mr X renewed it on 3 August 2022. I also saw evidence Mr X renewed its tax on 2 August 2022.
34. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it removed Mr X’s vehicles under Class A of its policy. It said Mr X’s vehicles were damaged, full of waste, and fulfilled the criteria of abandoned vehicles. However, it was not aware he was paying to store the vehicles.
35. The Council said the contractor should have removed the vehicles within 24 hours of the report on 27 July. The Council confirmed its officer did not carry out further checks before re-sending instructions to the contractor on 5 August.
36. The Council said it did not ask or permit its contractor to destroy Mr X’s cars. It said its process is to search for the owner. It was unaware the contractor had destroyed the vehicles until it was notified. The Council then clarified its policy to the contractor and told them not to destroy any vehicles in future without confirmation from officers first.

Analysis

37. When Council officers inspected Vehicle One, its front end was missing, and the car was not in a roadworthy condition. Also, because Mr X had not told the DVLA about his personal registration plate, Council officers could not trace the tax or MOT test status of the car. A Council officer first inspected Vehicle One in May 2022. At that time, the officer considered the car appeared abandoned, due to its condition. The car was still in the same condition when a second officer inspected it again in July 2022. It therefore appeared the car had remained in that condition for a significant time.
38. When considering the relevant law and guidance, I found no fault in the Council’s decision to remove Vehicle One as abandoned. Due to the car’s condition, the Council was entitled, under Government guidance, to remove and destroy it straight away.
39. When Officer B first inspected Vehicle Two its MOT test certificate and tax had expired. However, Officer B recorded the damage to Vehicle Two as only ‘minor’ and ‘slight’.
40. While I appreciate Vehicle Two’s tax and MOT test certificate were out of date, Officer B found the vehicle details through the DVLA, and I have seen no evidence the car was significantly damaged or unroadworthy. It was not burnt out and did not have number plates missing. According to a resident, Vehicle Two had been in the car park for ‘some time’. It is up to the attending officer to decide whether that would be considered a ‘significant amount of time’. While I consider it is far from being clear cut in this case, two elements from the Government guidance list of factors ‘likely’ to make a car appear abandoned are present. I therefore find no fault in the decision that Vehicle Two was abandoned.
41. Having decided Vehicle Two was abandoned, the Council was entitled, under Government guidance, to remove and destroy it immediately. That is because at the time Mr X had not taxed it.
42. However, the Council did not immediately remove and destroy either of Mr X’s cars.
43. Officer B saw Vehicle One and Two again in the car park on 5 August and re-submitted the abandoned vehicle report.
44. Unfortunately, in-between Officer B’s visits to the car park, Mr X had renewed Vehicle Two’s tax and MOT test certificate. That meant when Officer B visited the car park on 5 August, Vehicle Two no longer met the criteria for an abandoned vehicle. It held a valid MOT test certificate, meaning it was roadworthy and not significantly damaged. It also held valid tax. Officer B should have checked the details again on his second visit before re-submitting the abandoned vehicle report. That was fault.
45. Because Vehicle Two could no longer be classed as abandoned the Council was no longer entitled to remove and destroy it when it did. That was fault.
46. The Council told me that, despite having the power to remove and destroy abandoned vehicles straight away, its internal procedure is to still try to trace the owner. The contractor’s actions in destroying both cars before the Council could try to contact the owner is therefore fault.
47. The Council would have been able to trace Mr X regarding Vehicle Two, because it was correctly registered with the DVLA.
48. Because Mr X did not tell the DVLA about his personal registration plate for Vehicle One, the Council may have faced difficulty tracing his details. However, the Council would have been able to trace Mr X about Vehicle Two, and Mr X would have then asked the Council about Vehicle One. On balance I therefore find the Council would have been able to contact Mr X about Vehicle One.
49. While I accept the Council did not instruct its contractor to destroy Mr X’s cars straight away, the contractor is acting on the Council’s behalf. The Council ultimately remains responsible. It is up to the Council to ensure its contractor is aware of the correct procedure and I am satisfied the Council has reminded its contractor what to do in future.

Injustice

50. Mr X suffered avoidable frustration and distress when the Council’s contractor removed and destroyed his cars without contacting him. He was also impacted financially.
51. The Council should pay Mr X a sum equivalent to the value of the vehicles it destroyed. I obtained valuations for the two vehicles. Vehicle One was valued at between £9,260 and £10,845. Vehicle Two, being a non-runner, was valued at approximately £6,500. As the vehicles have been destroyed, it is not possible to get exact valuations. I therefore consider the Council should pay Mr X £15,000 to replace the vehicles.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although we found fault with the actions of the Council’s contractor, we have made recommendations to the Council.
53. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to check the condition of Vehicle Two again before removing it. It will also apologise for its contractor destroying both Mr X’s cars without giving him the opportunity to claim them.
• Pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the avoidable frustration and distress its faults caused.
• Pay Mr X £15,000 to replace the vehicles its contractor destroyed.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I completed my investigation. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to double check the condition of one of Mr X’s cars, and when its contractor destroyed both Mr X’s cars before the Council notified him of their removal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman