Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to return his motorbike to him even after he had paid the fees for parking contraventions. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to return his motorbike to him after he had paid all parking contravention notices he owed. This, he says, caused him financial hardship through the extra costs of storage and the large costs of alternative transport during the prolonged period.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative framework

7. The government has issued statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions (the Guidance).
8. The Guidance states that a vehicle owner can be classed as a ‘persistent evader’ if there are three or more outstanding parking contravention notices (PCNs). It states that where a vehicle owner is confirmed as a persistent evader, their vehicle should be subject to the strongest possible enforcement following the issue of a PCN and can be immobilised or removed.
9. The guidance states the vehicle cannot be released until the owner has provided proof of ownership and a registered address together with payment of the PCN and release fee. After payment is made, the owner can make representations against the removal of the vehicle.

The Council’s policy

10. If the Council removes somebody’s vehicle it can be released from the car pound after:
• providing all proof documents;
• full payment of the fees and PCN charges.
11. If there are three or more unpaid PCNs where the appeal date has passed the documents needed for a release should prove:
• the person’s identity;
• ownership of the vehicle like a logbook;
• the person’s address, dated in the last three months.
12. When the person who is claiming the vehicle became its owner after the PCNs were issued they will need to show the Council the evidence this has happened. They must provide:
• the V5 registration certificate;
• a valid current certificate of insurance issued before the date the vehicle was removed;
• a utility bill dated within the last three months;
• a valid full driving licence;
• a valid bill of sale;
• a copy of a bank statement showing purchase of the vehicle.

What happened

13. At the beginning of May 2024 the Council removed Mr X’s motorbike (the Motorbike) as it was parked on a double yellow line.
14. A few days later Mr X tried to get the Motorbike from the car pound where the Council kept it. Mr X said he had bought the Motorbike in mid-April 2024 but had not yet received the V5C document showing he was a registered keeper.
15. Three days later the Council told Mr X he could collect the Motorbike from the car pound as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) had confirmed he had been the registered keeper of the Motorbike on the day when it had been seized. The Council said it would dispose of the Motorbike if Mr X failed to collect it within 35 days. The Council said Mr X was responsible for paying the outstanding PCNs, the release fee and the storage and removal costs. When claiming the Motorbike Mr X should bring proof of ownership, proof of his identity and proof of his address.
16. The next day the Council again contacted Mr X. Due to some irregularities in the documentation it was not satisfied Mr X had proven his ownership of the Motorbike. Because of the history of the PCNs issued for the Motorbike, particularly the dates and locations of the PCNs, the Council suspected an attempt to avoid liability. There were 23 outstanding PCNs issued for the Motorbike with a total debt of over £4,000. Three of them were issued after mid-April 2024. The Council asked Mr X to provide the details of the person from whom he had bought the Motorbike and to explain why he had insured it a few days before the purchase date. It also asked Mr X to send extra evidence proving his ownership, including:
• a copy of a bank statement showing a bank transfer to the seller of the Motorbike;
• a copy of the advertisement for the sale of the Motorbike;
• a full copy of the V5C logbook;
• an invoice or a receipt for the sale;
• extra proof of Mr X’s address.
17. In mid-May 2024 Mr X told the Council he had not yet received a full V5C logbook from the DVLA. He could not show the evidence of a bank transfer for the purchase of the Motorbike as he had paid for it by cash. He attached a copy of the advertisement of the Motorbike on a social media application. Mr X also provided evidence for his address and explained why his insurance policy had started a few days before he bought the Motorbike.
18. The Council remained dissatisfied with the documentation presented by Mr X. It suggested it could release the Motorbike if Mr X paid all outstanding PCNs, the removal fee and provided all documentation including the full logbook.
19. Mr X said he would seek legal advice. The next day he sent the Council the first page of the V5C logbook and asked it to release the Motorbike.
20. A week later Mr X complained about the Council’s seizure of his vehicle. He reiterated he could not provide a bill of sale as he had paid cash for the Motorbike. Mr X had unsuccessfully tried to contact the previous owner to get extra documents. He did not have the previous owner’s details as, he said, the transaction had been completed via social media and the parties had not exchanged contact details.
21. After some further chasing correspondence from Mr X the Council responded to his complaint at the end of June 2024. The Council said it had refused to release the Motorbike due to Mr X’s failure to prove his ownership. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s position remained the same in its response from the beginning of August 2024 to Mr X’s stage two complaint.
22. At the beginning of July 2024 Mr X paid the PCN fees for the parking contraventions after mid-April 2024.

Analysis

23. As explained in paragraph three of this decision when investigating complaints we check whether councils follow the correct process rather than decide about the merits of the councils’ decisions.
24. Due to the history of the parking contraventions for the Motorbike the Council could have legitimately applied the legislation mentioned in paragraph eight, which resulted in seizing the Motorbike.
25. Following its policy the Council asked Mr X to provide certain documents to prove his ownership of the Motorbike, including a full V5C logbook, a valid bill of sale and a copy of a bank statement showing purchase of the Motorbike. Mr X could not provide a bill of sale or a copy of a bank statement. He supplied only the first page of the Motorbike logbook despite the Council’s specific request for a full copy. The Council considered that the combination of the delay in providing even the first page of the V5C document, the absence of some documents and the inconsistencies in some dates meant Mr X failed to prove his ownership of the Motorbike.
26. I do not find fault in the Council’s refusal to release the Motorbike as when reaching this decision the Council followed the correct process.
27. Mr X explained that because of the circumstances of the sale transaction he did not have the documents the Council asked for. As pointed out in paragraph 25 above when making its decision the Council considered various factors and the absence of the documents was only one of them.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman