Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle the Council removed because it believed it was abandoned because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about his missing belongings or the Council’s handling of information requests. This is because other bodies are better placed to consider these complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:
• the Council wrongly decided his vehicle had been abandoned and removed it;
• two bikes were missing from the vehicle once he got it back; and
• the Council did not properly handle information requests he made.
2. Mr X said this has caused a financial impact and caused him stress. He wants an apology and the Council to pay him £3,000 for the lost bikes and to repay the costs of recovering his vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, Section 26, paragraph 2 as amended)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council identified a vehicle which it suspected might be abandoned. This was because the vehicle had mould growing in it, there was debris around and under it suggesting it had not been used for some time, it was unlocked and it did not have an MOT. The Council left a notice on the vehicle requesting the owner get in touch with officers within 7 days but heard nothing. The Council later removed the vehicle.
10. The Council obtained details showing Mr X was the registered keeper. It sent him a letter informing him of what had happened. Mr X had to pay £244 to retrieve his vehicle.
11. Mr X complained and said the Council was wrong to class his vehicle as abandoned.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. Councils have a wide discretion when deciding whether a vehicle is abandoned. Here, the Council applied its own policy and statutory guidance to the particular facts of the case and decided the vehicle was abandoned. Mr X may disagree with the outcome, but there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. Therefore, we cannot criticise the decision itself.
13. Mr X also said when he got the vehicle back two bikes worth £3,000 were missing. Theft is a criminal matter and only the Police have the power to investigate. Therefore, we cannot investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
14. Finally, Mr X said he made information requests to the Council but it did not handle them appropriately. This matter is better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body set up to consider such matters. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is either not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation or there are other bodies better placed to consider parts of it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman