Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a notice the Council put on the complainant’s car about possible abandonment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s contractor lied and, as a result, he had to pay £150 to move his vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. In September someone reported Mr X’s vehicle to the Council as a potentially abandoned vehicle. An officer inspected the vehicle and thought it might be abandoned. The officer asked the DVLA for details of the registered keeper.
5. The DVLA responded and said Mr X is the registered keeper. The Council again inspected the vehicle but failed to first check for a reply from DVLA. The Council put a notice on the vehicle asking for the owner to come forward.
6. Mr X rang the Council’s contractor and said he is the registered keeper and had not abandoned the vehicle. The Council closed the case.
7. Mr X was unwell at the time and unable to drive. He paid for a recovery van to move the vehicle. This cost Mr X £150.
8. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council said the contractor had not followed the correct process. It had failed to check for a reply from DVLA before putting the notice on the vehicle. The Council said it would learn from this mistake and monitor the contractor. It apologised for the inconvenience and for incorrectly stating Mr X had visited the car pound.
9. The Council did not remove Mr X’s vehicle to the car pound and it did not issue any fines. Mr X did not incur any costs from the Council.

Assessment

10. The Council should have checked for a response from DVLA before it put the notice on Mr X’s vehicle. If it had done this it could have contacted Mr X rather than applying the notice. However, all the Council did was put the notice on the vehicle. It did not remove the vehicle or issue any fines.
11. Mr X called the Council when he saw the notice. He then had a chance to explain that the vehicle was not abandoned. He would have had the same opportunity if the Council had checked the DVLA reply before applying the notice. For this reason, and because it was Mr X’s choice to pay for a recovery vehicle to move his vehicle, there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation. In addition, the Council has apologised and said it will learn from the errors that arose.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman