Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council removing her vehicle from a public highway. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council, the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council unlawfully removed her damaged vehicle from a public highway and without giving her sufficient notice before doing so. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and it affected her financially. She wants the Council to provide her with an apology and a financial remedy. She also wants the Council to review its procedures to prevent a recurrence of faults.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s vehicle was involved in an accident. The vehicle was left on a public highway. Mrs X said she made sure any dangerous parts of the vehicle were covered. Five days later, the Council removed her vehicle and took it to a compound. Mrs X complained and said:
• she had to report her vehicle stolen to the Police because the Council had initially said it was not responsible for removing her vehicle;
• she had repaired her vehicle herself whilst it was on the public highway yet the Council still removed it the following day. She said the Council had failed to inspect the vehicle again before removing it; and
• the Council did not give her sufficient notice of removal prior to removing her vehicle. Mrs X said there was no notice on the vehicle upon collecting it and she provided photographic evidence of this. The Council sent her a letter however, by the time it had arrived to her address, she did not have enough time to respond to the Council.
6. Mrs X said she had to pay fees to the compound. It affected her work and so she lost income for a couple of days. Mrs X also sought legal advice in relation to the matter.
7. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint. In its response, the Council:
• said Mrs X did not have the authority to leave her vehicle on a public highway. It said an enforcement officer had inspected the vehicle on two occasions and deemed the vehicle was dangerous and a safety hazard to the public;
• explained it made reasonable enquiries to contact Mrs X as the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle. It said the enforcement officer immediately attached a removal notice on the vehicle. The Council also wrote to Mrs X. It provided photographic evidence of this; and
• informed Mrs X it had hired a contractor and instructed it to remove the vehicle. It was not the contractor’s job to establish whether the vehicle had been repaired.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. The Council had reasonable grounds to consider Mrs X’s vehicle dangerous following two inspections. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Council has a duty to remove such vehicles left on a public highway.
9. Although Mrs X disputes the Council’s notice and letter, we consider it took reasonable steps to contact Mrs X and it provided evidence that a removal notice was attached to the vehicle. We cannot comment on why there was no notice attached to the vehicle in the photographs Mrs X provided.
10. The Council was entitled to rely on the enforcement officer’s assessment and was not required to have the removal contractor reassess whether Mrs X had subsequently repaired the vehicle.
11. The Council has not commented on why it initially told Mrs X it had not removed her vehicle however, even if we were to find fault, any injustice Mrs X experienced due to this is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
12. Subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council, the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman