Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle the Council removed as an abandoned vehicle. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council removed his vehicle without following the correct procedure. He had to pay £870 to get it back. Mr X wants a refund and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 photographs of the vehicle. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X parked a vehicle in a housing estate car park. He is not a tenant and is not allowed to park there. The Council received a report stating the vehicle had been parked for some and appeared to have been abandoned. An officer visited; he inspected the vehicle and took photographs.
5. The Council wrote to Mr X at the registered address for the vehicle. It asked Mr X to get in touch within seven days as it appeared the vehicle may have been abandoned. The Council said there was no MOT and he was not allowed to park in the car park. The Council said that if he did not get in touch it would remove and possibly destroy the vehicle.
6. Mr X did not contact the Council so a week later an officer placed a notice on the vehicle saying it would remove it after 24 hours unless Mr X got in touch. Mr X did not contact the Council so the Council removed the vehicle.
7. Mr X paid £870 to retrieve the vehicle. He says the Council did not follow the correct procedures. He says the warning letter was not put in a plastic sleeve. He agrees the vehicle was rusty but said it was taxed and insured. He disputed the tyres were flat.
8. In response, the Council said it had followed the correct procedure by writing to Mr X, putting a notice on the vehicle and assessing to see if it met the criteria to be treated as abandoned. It said the vehicle had been at the same location for three weeks, in a car park where Mr X was not permitted to park.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council acted correctly by inspecting the vehicle, noting how long it had been parked, taking photographs, and deciding the vehicle might have been abandoned. It only removed the vehicle after not getting a response from Mr X to the letter or the notice. There is nothing to suggest the Council did not follow the correct process and the law does not say notices must be placed in a plastic sleeve.
10. Mr X denies the vehicle was in a condition that met the definition of abandoned. However, while I am not a mechanic, I have looked at the photographs and they show a vehicle which has rust, tyres which look flat or not roadworthy, a missing section on the rear door, and a general poor condition. I have also seen a file note which says there was rubbish and a chair inside the vehicle. In addition, there was no MOT. Based on this I see no indication of fault in the Council’s judgement that the vehicle met the criteria to be considered abandoned.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman