Summary: The Council is not at fault for removing and destroying Mr X’s car. The Council is at fault for providing wrong information and not replying to an email from Mr X. This caused Mr X some injustice because he went to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice with an apology and small payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly removed and disposed of his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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 considered the complaint Mr X made and discussed it with him. I asked the Council for information and considered this. I also considered the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and associated charging regulations.
6. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and policy

The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

7. The Council has a duty to remove a vehicle from a road when it considers someone has abandoned it. It does not have to notify the owner before removing the vehicle. If the Council has not destroyed the vehicle and the owner pays the prescribed charges for removal and storage, the Council will allow the owner to take the vehicle.
8. Councils can only charge what the regulations allow. London Councils, an organisation that represents London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London, sets the fees and charges for London. Since 2007 every London council charges £200 to remove a vehicle, £40 a day for storage and £70 for disposal.

The Council’s policy

9. The Council has criteria for deciding if a vehicle is abandoned, it will only remove the vehicle if it meets one of the criteria. The criteria include:

• The vehicle has not moved in a month
• It is run down and not in use, has rubbish in it, has flat tyres or missing wheels.

10. It says even if someone owns the vehicle it can class it as abandoned if it meets the criteria.
11. If the Council removes a vehicle with a registration plate it will contact the DVLA for the owner’s details. It will then write to the owner telling him or her about the fees they must pay and giving 7 days to pay before it disposes of the vehicle.

What happened

12. In April 2018 the Council received complaints of a car abandoned on a residential road. An inspector looked at the car. The Inspector’s report says the car had rusty brake pads, flat tyres, spider webs and rubbish inside. The Inspector took photographs. I have seen the photographs.
13. The car belonged to Mr X. He lives over five miles away and says he parked in this road because it has no parking restrictions. He says if he needed the car he got public transport to it. He says he used his car many times after April 2018 but always parked back in the same place.
14. The Council got Mr X’s name and address from the DVLA.
15. On 1 November 2018 the Council removed the car and took it to the pound. The Council took photographs of the car before it moved it. I have seen the photographs.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X and said it considered he had abandoned the car and the Council had taken it into storage. It told him where the car was and what he needed to do to get it back. It told him he had to pay a £200 removal charge and £40 a day storage fees before he could have the car. It told him he had to collect the car in 7 days or the Council would destroy it.
17. Mr X contacted the pound on 6 November. He told it the Council said he could collect the car for free. The pound said this was not the case and told him what he owed.
18. All London councils use an independent organisation that registers the details of all vehicles councils remove. The car owner can enter the number plate on that organisation’s website and get details of the removal. Mr X went on the website on 7 November and printed what it said. This told him the Council removed his car because he had parked it in a suspended bay. It said he had no removal charge or storage fees to pay.
19. Mr X says he also contacted the Council and it said it removed his car because it was in a suspended parking bay. He says he told the Council there was no parking restrictions on the road and the Council advised him to appeal.
20. Mr X says he went to the road and took photographs to show it had no parking restrictions and no suspended bays.
21. Mr X appealed and the Council replied on 15 November. It said it removed his car as an abandoned vehicle, it had first inspected in April.
22. On 21 November Mr X went to the pound. He said he would not pay. The staff member told him he had to pay and the current amount he owed.
23. Mr X complained to the Council on 23 November saying he had not parked in a suspended bay. The Council replied on 10 December. It said it had legitimately removed his car as abandoned and the Councils records confirmed this. It said the other organisation had given him the wrong information.
24. The Council says the problem was the organisation did not have a code for abandoned vehicles. It says it used the wrong code, affecting several councils. It says the organisation has now addressed this.
25. On 14 December Mr X asked the Council if he could get his belongings from the car. He said he had university books and some of his personal data in the car. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s email but did not reply further.
26. Mr X spoke to the pound on 11 January 2019. The pound offered to reduce the £2,000 owed to £1,000. The pound then put this offer in writing to Mr X and gave him until 25 January to accept or it would dispose of the car. Mr X said he did not have £1,000.
27. On 8 February Mr X asked the Council to put a hold on destroying the car while he made a complaint to us. The Council refused but extended the deadline for Mr X to pay £1,000 to 14 February. Mr X did not pay and the Council destroyed the car and what was in it.

Analysis

28. The photographs the Council took in April and November 2018 show Mr X’s car in exactly the same position, including the position of the wheels. The photographs show what was inside the car had not changed or moved. The only differences between the two sets of photographs are the season, other cars in the street and that the tyres on Mr X’s car are flatter in November. The Council is not at fault for removing the car. The length of time Mr X left the car there and its condition met the criteria for removal in the Council’s policy.
29. Mr X wanted the Council to release his car without payment. The law allows the Council to impose charges and it imposed these correctly. The law says the Council does not have to release a car until the owner pays the fees and charges. The Council showed flexibility. It extended the time it kept the car and offered to accept a reduced payment.
30. Mr X says the Council should have waited until we had dealt with his complaint before disposing of the car. I am not critical of the Council for this. It usually gives 7 days to pay. It gave Mr X nearly four months.
31. The Council sent Mr X a letter giving the correct reason it had removed his car and what he had to pay. Mr X then looked at the other organisation’s website and this had the wrong reasons and charges. This is fault. This fault caused limited injustice to Mr X. The Council told him the correct position in writing, and the pound told him verbally. The injustice to Mr X is he went to some unnecessary time and trouble proving there were no parking restriction in the road.
32. The Council says the organisation has already addressed the problem which resulted in it having incorrect information on its website.
33. The Council did not reply to Mr X’s email of 14 December asking how he could get his belongings from the car. This is fault. The fault caused Mr X limited injustice. He went to the pound in November and could have asked to collect anything important inside the car then. He was in contact with the pound in January 2019 and it gave clear deadlines for when it would destroy the car. Mr X could have asked the pound about retrieving his belongings.
34. I cannot know what was in the car. On the balance of probabilities, I do not consider Mr X had anything valuable in the car. Leaving belongings inside a car for so long parked so far away involves a risk. Mr X left possessions in his car parked over 5 miles from his home for at least 7 months. He only asked the Council about retrieving his possessions once. This leads me to consider Mr X was not unduly concerned about the loss of what was in his car.
35. We publish guidance on remedies. We usually recommend a payment between £100 and £300 for unnecessary time and trouble. Mr X went to some unnecessary time and trouble in taking photographs and writing to the Council and not getting a response. I consider the injustice the Council caused Mr X merits a remedy at the lower end of our guidance.

Agreed action

36. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the other organisation, I have made recommendations to the Council.
37. To put matters right for Mr X, the Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will:

• Apologise to Mr X for the incorrect information on the organisation’s website and not replying to his email; and
• Pay him £100 for the injustice this caused him.

Back to top

Final decision

38. The Council is not a fault for removing and destroying Mr X’s car. The Council is at fault for giving wrong information and not replying to Mr X. The council has agreed to provide a remedy for this. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman