Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle the Council removed as an abandoned vehicle. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly destroyed his car after receiving a false abandonment report, that said the keeper was deceased. He says the car, which belonged to his late mother, had sentimental value. Mr X says while away for work, the car was removed and destroyed without any prior contact, and the notification letter arrived after the crushing. Mr X says the Council did not carry out proper checks and failed to communicate with him before crushing his car. He wants them to investigate what went wrong, apologise and make things right with compensation, better policies, and improved processes.

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 or continue 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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. On 21 April 2025, someone reported Mr X’s vehicle as abandoned claiming it had been there since September 2024 and that the owner was deceased.
6. The Council checked for tax, MOT, and insurance and found none. It confirmed the car was on an adopted highway and notified the police the same day. The Council says its role then ended after notifying the police.
7. On 23 April 2025, Mr X left the country for two weeks’ work. That same day, a recovery company instructed by the police removed the car and sent a letter to Mr X advising it would be destroyed on 6 May 2025 if he did not respond.
8. Mr X returned to the UK on the 8 May 2025, found the letter, and contacted the recovery company, but the car had already been destroyed.
9. The Council has explained to Mr X that it followed its procedure for cases where a vehicle is reported as abandoned and has no MOT, road tax, insurance and has been declared Statutory Off Road (SORN) with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The Council cannot be held responsible for the action the police or the recovery company took once it had referred the matter on. Vehicles that are declared SORN with the DVLA are prohibited from being used or kept on a public road. It is the registered vehicle keeper’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the rules for SORN vehicles.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council followed its abandoned vehicle process and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman