Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to follow statutory processes in its interactions with Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow statutory processes when it:
• unlawfully removed his vehicle without notice,
• misused a court summons for council tax,
• failed to comply with freedom of information (FOI) legislation, and
• place him on its restricted persons register.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions had wasted his time and resources. He wants an independent investigation into the Council’s conduct, for officers to face disciplinary action, an apology and financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
8. 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,
• further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Mr X’s complaint the Council unlawfully removed his vehicle

11. The Council said it received reports of an abandoned vehicle on a public highway. It said it visited site and the vehicle had no registered keeper, did not have a valid MOT, and had no vehicle tax. It decided the vehicle was abandoned and removed it. The Council followed Government Guidance on the assessment and removal of abandoned vehicles. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
12. The Council has told Mr X he needs to provide proof of ownership if he wants it to return his car. It said following that, it will consider his concerns about the fees awarded for impounding the vehicle. The Council is entitled to ask for proof of ownership. We cannot instruct it to return the vehicle without this. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Mr X’s complaint the Council misused a summons for council tax

13. The Council obtained several Liability Orders from the Court over a decade ago in respect of Mr X’s unpaid council tax. The Liability Orders allowed it to deduct money from Mr X’s benefits.
14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council unlawfully obtained these Liability Orders. Firstly, we expect a person to complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter. Mr X has known about the Liability Orders for over a decade, therefore, any complaint about them is late and we will not consider them now.
15. In addition, Mr X’s complaint is about the information the Council presented to the Court. We cannot consider matters that have been part of court proceedings therefore, this part of Mr X’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction. Mr X would need to apply to the Court if wants the Liability Orders set aside.

Mr X’s complaint the Council has not complied with FOI legislation

16. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deals with complaints about FOI. It is reasonable for Mr X to complaint to the ICO if he believes the Council has not dealt with his requests in line with the legislation.

Mr X’s complaint the Council has placed him on the restricted persons register

17. In its letter to Mr X the Council said it was restricting his contact because of the high volume of emails he was sending staff. It set out how Mr X could appeal the decision. It said Mr X need to provide a valid address or identification so it could confirm his identify before it would consider further correspondence with him.
18. We will not investigate this complaint further. The Council set out its reasons for restricting Mr X’s contact. It has taken these steps in line with its policy. It has set out what he needs to do to appeal that decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman