Summary: Mr X complains the Council disposed of a car he left on the public highway which was fully taxed and issued with a current MOT. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council disposed of his car which he had left on the public highway taxed and with a current MOT. He says he received no notification about its removal and storage and only became aware of the matter when the car had been scrapped. He wants to the Council to compensate him for the cost of the car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X kept his car, taxed and with a current MOT, on a road with no parking restrictions.
6. The Council received a report that his car had been parked in the same place for two months. It carried out an inspection and saw the interior was covered in mould, had car parts in the footwell and appeared not to have been recently moved. Because of this evidence, and despite the car being taxed and holding a valid MOT, the Council considered the car to have been abandoned.
7. Under its legislative powers, the Council attached a warning notice to the car which advised it would be removed unless the owner made contact within 7 days. Mr X was unaware of the notice and the Council removed the car 9 days later.
8. With the car in storage, the Council sought to contact Mr X to advise him of what had occurred and that he had 21 days to make contact before it would dispose of the car. The Council sought to contact Mr X by means of a recorded delivery letter and it says the Royal Mail made several attempts to post the letter to Mr X. Having received no contact from him, the Council destroyed the car 28 days after its removal. Mr X says he received no letter or notice about the car and only became aware of the matter when the car had already been destroyed.
9. Mr X complained to the Council that it had wrongly taken his car as he had not abandoned it. He said it had been parked in a road with no parking restrictions and had been taxed with a valid MOT and that he had received no notice of the Council’s intention to remove it.
10. The Council addressed his complaint in some detail, setting out a timeline of the events and explaining that it had the power to remove vehicles it reasonably thought abandoned, even if the vehicle was taxed with an MOT. It acknowledged it would have been frustrating for Mr X to have become aware of the matter after the car had been destroyed but that it had given an additional week for contact because the car had been taxed.

Assessment

11. I understand Mr X’s disappointment at having his car removed and only becoming aware of its storage by the Council after its destruction. However, I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter. It acted under the legislative powers available to it, which allows for the removal and destruction of vehicles even if they are taxed and hold an MOT, and it followed the proper procedures set out for such situations.
12. The Council has explained what evidence it took into account in coming to its view that the car was abandoned. I note Mr X says the mould was present because the roof had a leak which he had intended to fix. However, it is not our role to review the merits of the Council’s decision and we cannot substitute our view for that of the Council’s.
13. It is most unfortunate that Mr X was not aware of the notice attached to the car before it was removed, and that Royal Mail was unable to deliver the recorded delivery letter to him in advance of the car’s destruction. However, the Council had only to make reasonable attempts to contact him and this it did.
14. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says he received no notification or letters before the Council destroyed the car. In an email to Mr X dated 19 May 2020, the Council attached a copy of the registered letter it had sent him on 19 March (a month before the car was destroyed) and while Mr X did not receive the letter the Council showed it had sent it to him.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman