Summary: Mr H complained the Council has taken control of a car he bought, for an unpaid fine the seller had not paid. We found the Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr H complained the Council took control of a car he had bought, for a fine which was owed by the seller. He says he provided evidence that he owned the car when the car was impounded but the Council did not accept his evidence.
2. Mr H wants the car returned and a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 H and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr H and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision before this final decision was made.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr H says he bought a car on 19 January 2025. He says he paid cash which he had borrowed from his brother.
8. Enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council impounded the car that night.
9. When Mr H went to the car the following day, it was not there. He checked online and found it had been taken by the Council.
10. Mr H complained and said he had just bought the car so any fine attached was not owed by him.
11. The enforcement agents told Mr H he would need to provide specific listed proof of ownership documents.
12. Mr H responded with the evidence he had, but he did not have everything the agents had asked for. The only document showing the date of sale is a handwritten note.
13. The agents referred Mr H’s documents to the Council, which considered his evidence and said that it did not show he owned the car before it was towed.
14. The enforcement agents told Mr H his claim to the car had been rejected and explained which of the required documents were missing.
15. Mr H was unable to provide the proof the Council needed to show he owned the car when it was towed. The Council declined to accept Mr H’s claim to the car on this basis.
16. Mr H complained as he says the Council has unfairly deprived him and his family of the benefit of a car he had bought.

Law and guidance

17. A bailiff can take items to the value of a debt owed. He is not entitled to take goods belonging to another person.
18. If a person’s goods have been taken into control for a debt owed by someone else, they have a right to make a third-party claim. If a third-party claims they own removed goods, they must give notice in writing to the bailiff who has taken control of them.
19. On receiving a notice, the bailiff should, within three days, give notice of the claim to the creditor. The creditor must then within seven days, give notice to the bailiff telling them whether it accepts or rejects the claim. If the creditor rejects the claim, then the person claiming to own the controlled goods needs to make an application to the court.
20. The ombudsman expects authorities to apply the principles of good administrative practices in its actions. This includes:
• being service user focused;
• being open and accountable;
• acting fairly and proportionately;
• putting things right.

Findings and analysis

21. The Council has shown it gave notice of its intention to impound the car more than seven days before it was taken.
22. Mr H made his third party claim, and this was considered by the Council.
23. When the Council rejected his claim, it explained its reasons for doing so and explained to Mr H what he would need to provide to change this outcome.
24. When Mr H did not provide those specific documents, the Council confirmed its rejection of his claim and told him of his legal rights.
25. The Council has allowed a third party claim, considered the claim and made a decision it is entitled to make. The Council is not at fault for this.
26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
27. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to reject Mr H’s claim. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman