Summary: Mr X complained the Council took two of his cars it thought he had abandoned. Mr X says he managed to collect one car from the Council but it had already destroyed the second car. The Council has acknowledged it should not have destroyed the second car before Mr X had a chance to review the contents. The Council offered £100 for the injustice of Mr X’s lost opportunity to collect the second car and items inside. The Ombudsman considers this offer is suitable to reflect the Council’s fault and the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council took two of his cars it thought he had abandoned. Mr X says he managed to collect one car (Car A) from the Council but it had already destroyed the second car (Car B).
2. The Council offered Mr X £100 for it destroying Car B before he had the opportunity to review the contents. Mr X says that this £100 does not cover the cost of the destroyed car and his belongings inside the car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council including:
• complaint correspondence;
• the vehicle abandonment letter;
• photographs and details of the abandoned vehicles; and
• notes of meetings with the Council.
6. Mr X provided comments in response to the draft decision. The Council accepted my findings. I considered Mr X’s comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Government Guidance

Abandoned vehicles: local authority responsibilities

7. Councils are required to remove abandoned vehicles from roads (including public highways). Unlike with private land, there is no requirement for the Council to give a 15-day notice period when the car is on a road.
8. Council’s must decide if a vehicle is abandoned before removing the car. The guidance says that it is likely a vehicle is abandoned if at least one of the following applies:
• It has no keeper on the DVLA’s database and is untaxed.
• It is stationary for a significant amount of time.
• It is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy, for example has flat tyres, missing wheels or broken windows.
• It is burned out.
• A number plate is missing.
9. The Council must try to find the owner of an abandoned vehicle unless the vehicle is only fit to be destroyed or it has no number plate or tax discs. If the Council can find the owner, it must give the owner 7 days’ written notice to collect the vehicle before disposing of it. The Council must return the vehicle if the owner claims it and pays the Council’s costs for removal and storage. If an owner fails to comply with a collection notice the Council may dispose of the vehicle.
10. Councils can apply a fixed penalty notice to people who abandon vehicles and claim costs for removal, storage and disposal (Regulation 4, The Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges) Regulations 2008)

Council Policy

11. The Council’s policy states it will remove a vehicle on a public highway without notice and the last registered keeper will be liable for the £105 cost for removal. The Council will store the vehicle for 7 days at £12 per day storage costs before it destroys the car at a cost of £55. The Council can issue a fixed penalty notice of £200 to people found to be abandoning a vehicle on a public highway.

What Happened

12. On 18 March 2019, the Council removed Car A and Car B from Council land as the Council considered the vehicles to be abandoned. The Council attended to remove the cars on the back of complaints received from locals about the vehicles remaining in the same spot for a long time.
13. Mr X contacted the police who made enquiries of the Council to see if it had the vehicles. The Council could not confirm it held the vehicles at this time.
14. The Council sent a letter to Mr X on 25 March 2019 advising him that it had removed the vehicles. The letter said:
• The vehicles were placed into storage and would remain there for 14 days from the date of the letter.
• The vehicles may be sold or destroyed.
• The costs associated with removal of the vehicles was £105, £55 for disposal and £12 per day storage costs up to 7 days.
• The Council asked Mr X to contact it to arrange collection of the vehicles.
15. Mr X telephoned the Council but the officer required was not available. He wrote to the Council to complain.
16. The Council responded to Mr X in May 2019 confirming both cars were still in storage and it had placed their disposal on hold. The Council requested a contact number or time and date when they could visit Mr X to discuss return of the cars.
17. Mr X wrote to the Council requesting an appointment. The Council responded, inviting him to a meeting on 12 June 2019 and advising Mr X to collect his vehicles before 14 June 2019. During that meeting Mr X disputed he had abandoned the vehicles and wanted to arrange access to the vehicles and his belongings inside Car B. The Council said Mr X had abandoned the vehicles because:
• The cars were SORN (Statutory Off-Road Notification) meaning that they must be parked on private land but Mr X had parked the cars on council land;
• the vehicles had been at that location for an extended period of time as demonstrated by the condition of the vehicles and the complaints from constituents;
• Car A’s MOT expired in 2017; and
• Car B’s MOT expired in 2013 and it was in a state of disrepair.
18. The Council advised Mr X when it considers a vehicle is abandoned it does not need to contact the owner to remove the vehicle but must do so after the event.
19. The Council agreed to waive the abandonment fees because it was unable to confirm it held the vehicles when the police contacted it as it had not completed a DVLA check for the owner. The Council confirmed systems have since been put in place to make sure it can access information about removed cars prior to a DVLA check.
20. Following the meeting, Mr X contacted the Council and arranged to collect Car A and to inspect his belongings in Car B. Mr X collected Car A on 14 June 2019. However, Car B had already been crushed and his possessions disposed of. Mr X contacted the Council. It said the storage facility had crushed Car B despite the Council’s request for the company to not destroy both cars on 21 May 2019.
21. Mr X complained to the Council who offered him £100 in compensation for the loss of opportunity for Mr X to inspect any belongings in Car B. Mr X disputed the offer. In October 2019, the Council reiterated its offer of £100. The Council advised Mr X it had already removed charges of £105 per vehicle for removal and £12 per day storage per car. The Council had also not applied the £200 fixed penalty charges notices for either car. The Council directed Mr X to the Local Government Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.

Analysis

Removal of vehicles

22. The Council said Car A and Car B were stationary for a significant amount of time. The photographs the Council provided demonstrated that Car B had been stationary for a prolonged period due to the growth of moss and weeds up the vehicle. The photographs of Car A showed less growth, but enough time had passed for moss to grow around some tyres demonstrating a lack of movement.
23. In addition, the vehicles were SORN and parked on a public highway. They had been without an MOT since 2017 (Car A) and 2013 (Car B).
24. It is illegal to drive a car without an MOT. This would support the Council’s position that both Car A and B had been stationary since at least 2017. On this ground I would not find fault with the Council removing Mr X’s vehicles as abandoned.
25. The Council was at fault for being unable to confirm to the police it had removed the vehicles prior to completing the DVLA owner check. This caused Mr X uncertainty as to location of his cars and wasted time trying to find his cars. The Council has already agreed to waive the removal and storage fees (totalling £378) for Mr X’s vehicles and put in place a system to prevent this issue in future.
26. As the Council was entitled to apply these fees, I would consider this is suitable to address this fault and injustice Mr X experienced.

Disposal of Car B

27. The Council was entitled to dispose of Mr X’s vehicles in line with its policy and government guidance within seven days of written notice. This means the Council could have disposed of both Car A and Car B as early as 1 April 2019.
28. Mr X contacted the Council who agreed that disposal of his vehicles would not occur until after 14 June 2019. The Council has accepted fault for disposing of Car B before 14 June 2019.
29. I have seen evidence that Mr X confirmed he wished to recover Car A. However, I have seen no evidence to support that Mr X wished to recover Car B. But Mr X did want the opportunity to inspect his belongings within Car B with the view to recovery of these items. The Council destroying Car B prior to 14 June 2019 causing Mr X to lose any opportunity to inspect and recover his belongings.
30. The Council has offered Mr X £100 compensation for Mr X’s lost opportunity to inspect his belongings within Car B. From the evidence available I cannot determine the value of Mr X’s belongings inside Car B. Mr X has also not provided evidence to show the Council owes him more than £100 for the loss of the belongings in his car.
31. Since I cannot value Mr X’s belongings and there is no evidence to show Mr X had an interest in collecting Car B, I can only consider whether the council’s remedy is sufficient to acknowledge Mr X’s lost opportunity. I am satisfied the Council’s offered financial remedy is appropriate for the lost opportunity.

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X, the Council has agreed that within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council will:
• Send Mr X an apology in writing; and
• Pay Mr X £100 to reflect the lost opportunity to inspect his possessions contained within Car B.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman