Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions linked to reports of a vehicle which belonged to him being abandoned. We found fault as the Council gave out an incorrect telephone number and did not respond to an email from Mr X in a timely manner. This caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and made a symbolic payment to him. We are satisfied this has remedied any injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council threatened to remove his car from a parking space near to his home when it had no right to do so.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him distress and frustration and that he now no longer has the use of his car.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

7. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (the Act) and the Removal and Disposal of Vehicle (England) Regulations 1986 (as amended) (the regulations) set out the legal framework for the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles.
8. Councils have powers and duties to remove motor vehicles that appear to have been abandoned on land in the open air or on any other land, including public roads.
9. 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; or
• 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, the council must try to find the owner.
12. If a council proposes to remove a vehicle, it must fix a notice to the vehicle saying it intends to remove it after a stated time period ends. Where the vehicle is on private land, councils must give the owner or occupier 15 days’ notice. However, if the vehicle is on a road or highway this does not apply.
13. If a council cannot find the owner, or the owner fails to comply with the notice to collect the vehicle, the council can remove it.

What happened

14. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
15. At the end of January 2024, the Council received a report of an abandoned vehicle via an online form. This was about Mr X’s car. The report said the car had been parked in the same location for over 12 months and had not had a valid MOT certificate or car tax for some months. It also said it was parked in a visitor bay and was stopping others from parking there.
16. At beginning of May 2024, the Council received a second report about the same car but this time from a different person. This again said there was the possibility the vehicle had been abandoned.
17. In the summer of 2024, Council officers visited the site. The car was in a visitors’ parking space on the housing estate. They found the car had a flat tyre which was perished and the windscreen was covered in debris and moss. Officers placed an abandoned vehicle warning notice under the wiper blade of the car.
18. At the same time, the officers also spoke to Mr X and handed him another copy of the same notice as placed on the car. The notice cited the Act and the regulations. It advised that action would be taken in 15 days. It also advised of the right to object and showed details of the cost of removal, storage or destruction if the Council took action at the end of the 15 days.
19. On the same day, Mr X called the number on the bottom of the notice. It was no longer in service. He contacted the Council on the telephone and was given an email address for an officer (Officer J) in the relevant department for him to make contact with.
20. Mr X sent emails to the officer and asked various questions about why it had taken the action it had. Mr X said the vehicle was not in a state of disrepair or damaged and that it was not parked on a highway. He said he had organised repairs to the vehicle and would have it cleaned before having an MOT test to make it roadworthy. He asked the officer to take his emails as a formal response to the notice on the car.
21. Later that day, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Amongst other things, he said the Council should not have placed the notice as:
• the car was parked in a space he was entitled to use on a privately managed estate;
• the car was simply rarely used and had been registered as being off road with the DVLA;
• the car needed to be cleaned and the tyres repressurised; and
• the contact telephone number on the notice was no longer in service.
22. Three days later, Mr X made the decision to dispose of and scrap his car.
23. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint three weeks after he had made it. The response:
• explained it had been contacted twice with concerns about the vehicle appearing to be abandoned;
• said Mr X had assured officers he would move the vehicle as he no longer used it;
• apologised the notice had an out of service telephone number on it; and
• said all old notices had been destroyed.
24. The next day, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. He remained unhappy with the response, particularly that he felt the visitors’ parking space was private land. He acknowledged officers had powers to enforce vehicle removal but asked the Council not to get involved in local parking issues on the housing estate.
25. Over the next two weeks, a different officer from the Council met with Mr X, spoke to him on the telephone and communicated via email.
26. Two weeks after Mr X escalated his complaint, the Council sent its stage two complaint response. It answered the questions posed by Mr X in previous discussions and again apologised the original notice had an incorrect telephone number on it. The Council also said it would ask Officer J to respond to Mr X’s emails sent on the day officers placed the notice on his car.
27. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

28. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not make enforcement decisions. Rather, we consider whether there was any fault in how the Council acted when considering any relevant legislation, guidance or local policy in relation to the matters concerned.

Notice to remove Mr X’s car

29. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it considered the visitor parking spaces on the housing estate were land in the open air, as per the Act. It said:
• the Council considered the condition of the vehicle was causing an issue in the area;
• the Act therefore said it was the Council’s statutory duty to remove any abandoned vehicle on any land in the open air, whether public or private; and
• the visitor spaces may have been on private land but this was not land which belonged to Mr X.
30. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the Council, I am satisfied there was no fault in how it acted when making the decision to place the notice on Mr X’s car using the legislation it did.
31. In relation to the notice itself, the Council has confirmed and already apologised for the fact it contained an incorrect telephone number. Using notices with an incorrect telephone number was fault. However, I consider there was no ongoing injustice to Mr X as he was able to make contact with the Council via telephone and email in addition to making a formal complaint the same day the notice had been placed on his car. Old notices have already been replaced with new ones giving the correct contact number. I therefore make no recommendation related to this.
32. The Council is not responsible for Mr X’s decision to scrap the car. It is not responsible for any loss of use he has suffered as a result. I am satisfied the Council is not at fault here.

Officer J’s response to Mr X

33. In my enquiries, I asked the Council if Officer J had responded to Mr X as per its stage two response.
34. The Council confirmed that it had identified a response from Officer J to Mr X written at the time. It said this had been drafted and sent to a senior officer for approval but was not then sent to Mr X. The Council was unable to confirm why the letter had not been sent.
35. When responding to my enquiries, the Council also confirmed it had now sent a copy of what had been drafted to Mr X. The Council added a section onto the original letter. It apologised to him for not sending the original response and offered him a payment of £300 for the time and trouble he had experienced.
36. Not responding to Mr X’s email was fault. It would have caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has already apologised and made a symbolic payment to Mr X. The remedy offer of £300 is significantly higher than we are likely to have recommended in similar circumstances. I am therefore satisfied that any injustice caused to Mr X has already been remedied. I make no further recommendation.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman