Summary: Mr Y complains the Council removed and disposed of his caravan despite him providing confirmation that it was not abandoned. Mr Y also says he was not given the opportunity to recover the contents of the caravan before its destruction. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint because the Council followed the law and guidance before removing and destroying Mr Y’s caravan.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains that contractors commissioned by the Council removed and disposed of his caravan, despite him providing confirmation that the caravan was not abandoned.
2. Mr Y says his caravan was crushed almost immediately after its removal, and as a result he could not recover any of the caravan’s contents.
3. He says the actions of the Council and its contractors have caused distress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. During my investigation I contacted Mr Y and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered any written information he submitted.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response, and consulted the relevant law and guidance around the removal and destruction of abandoned vehicles
8. Before making a final decision, I issued a draft decision and invited comments from Mr Y and the Council. I considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

9. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (England) Regulations 1986 (as amended) set out the legal framework for the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles.
10. The law places a duty on local authorities to remove vehicles which, “... appears to them have been abandoned without lawful authority”. There is no legal definition of an abandoned vehicle; it is for the council to decide whether a vehicle is abandoned or not. Councils usually have their own internal policies about abandoned vehicles and these are normally shaped by government guidance.
11. Once a council removes an abandoned vehicle, government guidance says it should, if possible, take steps to identify the registered keeper using the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database. Once in possession of those details, councils must give seven days written notice to the owner allowing them the chance to collect the vehicle before it is disposed of. Councils must return a vehicle to its owner once claimed, provided they pay for any removal and storage costs.
12. If councils cannot trace the owner, or the owner fails to comply with a notice to collect the vehicle, the law says the council can destroy or sell the vehicle. The council may dispose of a vehicle “… in the case of a vehicle which in the opinion of the authority is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed, at any time after its removal”.

What happened

13. On 7 December 2017 the Council received a report of a caravan abandoned on a public highway in its area. The Council’s ‘Nuisance Vehicle Team’ inspected the caravan the following day. The officers decided, in their professional view, that the caravan was abandoned.
14. Photographs taken by the officers show the poor condition of the vehicle, as well as a lack of registration plates and wheels. Officers also made the following notes: “Dirt on the outside of the caravan, caravan back light is broken, damage to the bodywork at the rear of the caravan, caravan has no VRM [Vehicle Registration Mark] attached to it, no wheels are on the caravan, loose wire at the front, a single tyre is on top of the caravan, caravan has been left on car jacks, could not see inside caravan as the windows are covered from the inside, rubbish is being dumped at the side of the caravan, 7 day notice attached to the vehicle”.
15. Photographs provided to the Ombudsman show the notice placed on the caravan, which displayed the following information:

“Refusal Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. London Borough of Barnet. WARNING. Abandoned Vehicle investigation in progress. This vehicle will be impounded and may subsequently be destroyed, if not claimed or removed within the next 7 days. Date of notice: 08.12.17. Enquiries to [number removed]”

16. Mr Y says he called the Council the following day. He does not have the name of the person he spoke with, nor does he have any evidence of the call. But Mr Y says the officer he spoke to reassured him that, following his contact, the Council’s records would be updated to reflect that he had claimed the vehicle and it was not abandoned as suspected.
17. The Council says it only keeps records of telephone calls for 28 days but when it receives a call to claim a suspected abandoned vehicle, it will make a written record of the contact. The Council has no record of Mr Y’s call.
18. On 4 January 2018 an officer visited to check the caravan for signs of habitation. The officer decided there were no signs that the caravan was being used for rough sleeping. The following day officers returned to place another notice on the caravan, again confirming the ongoing investigation. This time the notice said:

“… this vehicle will be impounded and destroyed, if not claimed or removed within the next 24 hours”

19. The Council has provided a date and time stamped photograph to show the notice displayed on Mr Y’s caravan. Mr Y says he did not contact the Council again because he did not see the notice. Mr Y questions whether the notice was displayed, as the Council claims.
20. Three weeks later, the Council provided authorisation for its contractors to remove and destroy the caravan because it had not received any contact from the owner, nor could it establish ownership via the DVLA due to the lack of number plates.
21. The Council confirms that contractors removed and destroyed the caravan on 23 May 2018. It says it could not remove the caravan sooner because access had been blocked by other vehicles. The Council says the caravan was only fit for disposal, rather than storage, as it did not have wheels.
22. Mr Y complained to the Council when he discovered that contractors had removed and destroyed his caravan. Specifically, he complains that he was not contacted by the Council prior to the removal and that he was not given the opportunity to retrieve the contents of the caravan, all of which were destroyed with the caravan within three hours of being impounded.
23. The Council did not uphold Mr Y’s complaint because it said the removal and destruction of his caravan were carried out legally and in line with the law and guidance. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr Y approached the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr Y?

24. The law and guidance make clear that councils have a duty to remove abandoned vehicles on public highways and can dispose of those vehicles immediately if they are only fit to be destroyed or have no number plates. Both applied in this case.
25. If the council can locate the owner, they must provide seven days written notice to collect the vehicle before its disposal. In this case, the evidence shows the Council placed two notices on Mr Y’s caravan before it arranged for its eventual removal five months after receiving the initial report. The Council says it could not make direct contact with Mr Y as the vehicle had no number plates, and therefore Mr Y was not contactable via the DVLA. The Councils photographs support this. I am satisfied the Council did enough to try and notify Mr Y of its intentions
26. Mr Y says he contacted the Council to claim the vehicle after receipt of the first warning notice, but he cannot provide evidence to support this assertion. In any event, Mr Y had the opportunity to contact the Council again before the caravan’s removal because officers applied a second warning notice. Although Mr Y questions the presence of the second notice, the date-stamped photographs I have seen show the notice in place. I have no reason to question the validity of the Council’s photographs.
27. It is for these reasons that I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint. While I appreciate it was distressing for Mr Y to lose ownership of the caravan and its belongings, this was not through any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault for the reasons set out in this decision statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman