Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing and scrapping Mr X’s vehicle without giving him sufficient notice to remove it himself. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council taking his camper van and destroying it with out him being given an opportunity to remove it himself. He says the van had sentimental items and antiques inside it and that he used it occasionally for recreation purposes. He wants the Council to re-imburse him for his loss so that he can purchase an equivalent vehicle which was worth £3,500.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s policy on abandoned vehicles.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council removed his camper van without giving him an opportunity to take action beforehand. He says the vehicle contained antiques and items of sentimental value and although it was untidy it was roadworthy and he I tended to use it for holidays.
6. The Council says that the vehicle was considered to be in a vandalised and dangerous condition and that checks with the DVLA confirmed it had no valid MOT. It said the vehicle was not secure with a broken window and contained flammable items which made it a fire risk to nearby parked vehicles.
7. The Council left an immediate removal notice on the vehicle according to its policy and says a visit was made to the address provided by the DVLA. A card was left for the owner to make contact but this did not result in a response. The vehicle was removed 48 hours later by the Council’s appointed contractors. Mr X says he made contact within 24 hours of the vehicle being removed but was told it had been scrapped.
8. The Council has powers to remove dangerous vehicles from the Highway. If the vehicle is untaxed and has no registered keeper, it may be removed immediately. Otherwise, a notice giving 24 hours warning of its destruction will be attached to any dangerous vehicle of no intrinsic value. It says it notified the owner identified by the DVLA as the registered keeper and is not responsible if Mr X had a different address to that on the V5 document.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing and scrapping Mr X’s vehicle without giving him sufficient notice to remove it himself. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman