Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about actions taken by an Enforcement Agency on behalf of the Council when it removed and sold her vehicle. Either there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation or we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains an Enforcement Agency (EA), acting on behalf of the Council, wrongly removed and sold her vehicle at auction. Miss X says the previous owner committed the offence before she became the registered owner.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its complaints investigation the Council informed Miss X the EA took possession of the vehicle and issued a Warrant of Control to her. Miss X challenged this but did not submit the documents legally required. The EA informed her of this but Miss X did not respond within the statutory timescales. Miss X says this is because the email went into her spam folder. The EA, therefore, sold the vehicle at auction the following week.
6. It then told Miss X that if she paid what she owed, the car would be returned to her, even though by that time the car had been sold. Miss X paid the fine. The EA returned the money to Miss X and apologised for the confusion caused by its miscommunication.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. There is no evidence of fault in the process followed by the EA to seize and sell Miss X’s vehicle.
8. With regard to the incorrect advice relating to the retrieval of Miss X’s vehicle, the Council apologised and refunded the money Miss X paid. This is what we would have expected to see. Therefore, any investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve anything meaningful.
9. Finally, Miss X says she wants compensating for her private possessions which were in the car and which she did not get back. The Council said she did not make a request for them in time and it is no longer possible to retrieve them. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because either there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman