Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly explained its involvement regarding the removal of a vehicle from land near his property. The file notes of the Council’s actions in relation to the car are not clear and consistent. On balance, the evidence does not show the Council removed the car. The matter has been reported to the police who are better placed to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not properly explained its involvement regarding the removal of a vehicle from land near his property.
2. Mr X says he has lost financially due to the removal of the car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Following a report from a neighbour, the Council fixed a sticker to Mr X’s car on 24 September. The sticker said the Council believed the car was abandoned and the owner should contact it. The Council says the sticker was part of an informal stage prior to any formal action to remove the car.
7. Mr X told me he was on holiday and so was not aware his car had been stickered and so did not contact the Council. The Council visited the area again on 2 October and the car was not there. The Council has provided dated photographs showing the stickered car and the empty space. The Council denies it removed the car.
8. File notes provided by the Council show that Mr X spoke to the Council on 7 November about his car. Mr X told the Council it shouldn’t have stickered his car because it was on private land.
9. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in January as he believed the Council was involved in the removal of his car. The Council responded saying it did sticker the car after receiving a complaint the car had been abandoned. It said it never started formal enforcement action and it did not remove the car. It said Mr X had previously been advised to report the matter to the police if he believed the car was stolen.
10. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and so pursued his complaint through the corporate complaint procedure. Mr X also made a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request and was provided with redacted information.
11. In May 2019, Mr X attended a stage three complaint panel meeting. This took place over two dates due to ensure all issues were considered including information from Mr X and a council officer directly.
12. The stage three panel concerned itself with the issue of the information presented to Mr X. It did not consider the issue of the missing car as it was agreed this was a matter for the police. In June the complaint panel recommended an independent review be conducted to assess the information provided to Mr X against the information he requested. It said it would also review its procedure for dealing with abandoned cars and the use of stickers. Mr X says the Council has not provided him with any information to show it undertook these actions.
13. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2019. He says the Council has still not provided the full information about its involvement with this case. He says he still does not know what happened to his car and feels the Council is being malicious and unprofessional.
14. We sent a draft decision to Mr X on 25 November 2019 saying we did not propose to investigate the complaint. In response to this draft decision Mr X sent in further information. He said the files kept by the Council were unclear and misleading. He also provided a copy of an email from a recovery company about the removal of vehicles. On the basis of this further information we decided to investigate the complaint.
15. I made further enquiries to the Council about its actions around the time Mr X’s vehicle was removed.

Analysis

16. Mr X’s car was removed from private land without his knowledge or permission. The Council has consistently denied that it authorised the removal. It accepts it did put stickers on the car after a neighbour reported it as abandoned. However, it says it never started any formal removal process.
17. I have carefully considered the information I have about the Council’s involvement in this matter. I have been provided with an unredacted copy of the Council’s file notes. This shows that the Council was dealing with complaints about cars in the area generally including sales from the roadside and repairing vehicles on the highway. In my view the notes are written in a way that is open to interpretation for example, “car removed from comp land” could mean the Council had removed it or that it wasn’t there and someone else had removed it. I have seen nothing in the unredacted case notes that persuades me the Council removed the car.
18. Mr X also provided an email about a “smash and grab” exercise proposed by a private towing company. This email is dated around the time his car went missing. The company explained some issues it was experiencing and suggested the Council should authorise car removal without any prior warning or clamping. The Council has not provided any comment on this saying it has no recollections of this email.
19. The Council has provided details of all cars removed from Slough in the period 19 September to 2 October 2018. Mr X’s car is not included on that list. The Council has also confirmed it did not make any payments to recovery services for removal of a vehicle from Mr X’s land.
20. Taking into account all the information I have, on balance, I am not persuaded the evidence shows the Council was involved in the removal of Mr X’s car. In reaching this view I have to consider that it is not possible to prove a negative and so the Council cannot provide evidence of something it did not do.
21. Mr X has complained the Council provided different accounts of its actions. This was considered at the stage three complaints panel meeting. The case notes are not clear and I am aware the Council has already accepted this and will ensure better note keeping in the future. The Council has not provided evidence to show it completed the panel recommendations.
22. While I appreciate Mr X remains frustrated that he does not know what happened to his car, I am unable to provide any more certainty. I have only been able to consider the actions of the Council and not any third parties. The matter has been reported to the police who are much better placed to investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence the Council removed Mr X’s car.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman