Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mrs Z’s complaint about the Council’s Abandoned Vehicle Team removing and crushing her van and contents within the 7 days given on its Notice of Removal. It did this after 20 days. There was no fault on her complaint about it acting before an agreed 2-3 month extension. This is because there is no evidence of such an agreement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complains about the Council’s Abandoned Vehicle Team:
1. Removing and crushing her van and its contents, which were to be exported abroad, within the period given to her to move it; and
2. Carrying this out despite an officer telling her she could take 2-3 months to move it
2. As a result, this caused her a great deal of stress, particularly as she was pregnant at the time, and cost her financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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’. 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)

Back to top

Council’s Abandoned Vehicle Policy (April 2020)

5. Officers assess several factors to decide whether a vehicle is abandoned under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. This includes: no current keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) data base; it is untaxed; it appears stationary for a significant amount of time (for example, mould forming on parts of it); there is an accumulation of assorted articles inside it, which includes those that may be waste; the number plate is missing.
6. It does not matter if the vehicle is actually abandoned, only that an authorised officer believes it has been abandoned.
7. For vehicles on the highway, officers decide whether to remove it immediately, if considered abandoned, or apply an informal 7-day notice to it. This gives the owner a chance to move it before the Council investigates further.
8. If the Council removes a vehicle, it can dispose of it immediately if either, it is only fit for destruction and/or, it has no licence plates. In all cases, it will try and find the owner but, this may not be possible if there are no identifying features.
9. It can dispose of the vehicle as it sees fit.
10. Foreign or overseas registered vehicles may be subject to the same process and may be removed if abandoned or have a 7-day notice attached. The DVLA will not have registered keeper details of these vehicles. They are not fully subject to UK regulations, such as registration and taxation, unless here for a specified period.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information Mrs Z sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs Z and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

12. Mrs Z said a cousin drove a left-hand drive van over from Germany. She believed as she would export the van, she did not need to tax it. The van was parked outside her house on the road. By February and March 2020, Mrs Z began to have health problems because of her pregnancy. She was in and out of hospital.
13. The Council said the van was reported to its Abandoned Vehicle Team in early February. I have seen a copy of this report which claimed the vehicle had been in the same location for more than 12 months.
14. On 19 February, an officer visited the location and fixed a Notice of Removal to its side window as it did not display a vehicle registration number plate. This means it was untaxed and the Council could not trace its owner. It also had a flat tyre and there was waste in the front of the van. The officer decided the vehicle had not been moved for a long time and took photographs.
15. The photographs taken show the Notice of Removal fixed to a side window of the van which is dated 19 February. This gave 7 days to remove the van from this location, which means Mrs Z had until 26 February. They also show the driver and passenger seats full of half open boxes and children’s toys. One photograph shows a flat tyre at the front of the van with weeds growing around it.
16. While at hospital on 25 February for an appointment, a neighbour called her to tell her about the Notice on the van. When she returned home, Mrs Z called the number on it. She managed to speak to a Council officer (officer 1) and says she explained there were personal belongings inside the van, that her father was dying, she had health problems, and the van was for export. She claims officer 1 told her it was fine for her to take 2-3 months to move the van. He would tell his colleague (officer 2), who issued the notice, what they agreed.
17. While accepting an officer spoke to Mrs Z on this day, the Council says the officer does not recall her request for more time. Officers would not agree 2-3 months to remove a vehicle or make it road worthy. Such agreements are extremely rare and would involve a meeting with the owner to reach a written agreement. The Council says Mrs Z failed to provide evidence to support her claim she was the registered keeper but did say she was going to export the van. Calls to officers are not recorded and the Council did not provide copies of any record made of them.
18. On 5 March, the Council asked its contractor to remove the van.
19. On 10 March, the contractors removed it. The Council said it removed the van because Mrs Z failed to try and make it road worthy and move it. Mrs Z says she was in hospital for another appointment when her neighbour called her to tell her what was happening.
20. Mrs Z called officer 1 who, she says, agreed this should not be happening and would contact the contractor to find out where they were taking it. She says she called him back several times as the contractor was not replying to officer 1’s emails. The Council says officer 1 contacted the contractor but, the van had already been crushed.
21. The following day she called and spoke to officer 2 who told her she could get the personal belongings back but not the van. Neither officer called her back and despite visiting the Council’s offices, only later discovered the van and her goods had been crushed. She says the van was worth £3,500 and the contents were worth £8,000 as it included televisions, laptops, gifts, and clothes for example.
22. The Council says Mrs Z did not call until 16 March, claiming the van as a neighbour told her the contractors removed it the previous week. She spoke to officer 2 who took her details as she wanted to speak to officer 1.

Analysis

23. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The Council received a referral which suggested the van was abandoned and had remained in one place for more than 12 months.
2. The photographs I have seen show the Council had grounds to believe this was correct. This is because of the van’s condition. It had no number plates, it had a flat tyre which had weeds growing round it, and the driver and passenger front seating area was full of half opened boxes. The referral also suggested it had been there for more than a year.
3. An officer placed the Notice of Removal on the side window of the van during his visit. This was on 19 February. It confirmed the location of the van as outside Mrs Z’s property, gave a number to call if a person wanted to claim the van, and warned the Council would remove it within 7 days of the date of the Notice.
4. The Council accepts Mrs Z called officer 1 on 25 February, which is the day before the expiry of the 7-day period. She explained she was the owner but, failed to provide evidence. According to the Council, she said she was going to export the van.
5. The problem here is lack of evidence. The Council failed to provide any written record of this, or any other, conversation. This means there is no evidence of what was said during that call that supports what the Council claims was said or what Mrs Z claims was said.
6. I consider it would have been good practice to make, retain, and provide records of this call.
7. I note the Council did not remove the van for a further 14 days after her call. Even if Mrs Z had made officer 1 aware of her medical problems, she had 2 weeks to make some arrangement to move the van or, at the very least, empty it of its contents.
8. I found no fault on her complaint about the Council moving the van within the period set out on the Notice. The Council gave her 7 days on the Notice but did not remove it within that period. It removed it 20 days after placing the Notice on the van.
9. I found no fault on her complaint about the Council removing the van even though an officer had agreed to allow her 2-3 months to move it. This is because there is no evidence of any such agreement. I would expect to see written evidence of such an agreement, such as an email from the Council to her confirming the arrangements, for example. The officer does not recall any such request and says he would not have agreed to it anyway.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I found no fault on Mrs Z’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman