Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged abandoned car because the court is better placed to consider the complaint and it is reasonable to expect him to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly removed his vehicle believing it to be abandoned without giving proper notice and before a notice period expired.
2. Mr Y says the issue has caused him distress and he is unable to either have the vehicle or sell it after the Council took it. He also believes the vehicle has now been stood unused for so long with the Council that it is no longer of the value it was when the Council took it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y has told us that he is seeking compensation equivalent to the fair market value of his vehicle when the Council removed it and for the Council’s charges. He has said he no longer wishes to recover the vehicle itself due to the period it has spent unused and depreciation in its value since it was taken by the Council. Mr Y holds the council responsible for the loss of the value of the vehicle due to it wrongly removing his vehicle.
7. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. This includes claims for compensation such as those Mr Y has sought to make. We cannot determine liability claims. These are legal claims which can only be decide by insurers or the courts.
8. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as for the value of the vehicle, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. Mr Y may wish to begin this process by making a claim to the Council’s insurers.
9. Reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary and Mr Y may be able to claim back those costs if his case is successful in court. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to go to court. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the court is better placed to consider the complaint and it is reasonable to expect him to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman