The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly removed and destroyed his wife’s vehicle when it was not abandoned. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to remove and then dispose of the vehicle.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council wrongly removed and destroyed his wife’s vehicle and, in doing so, failed to follow its own procedures.
Mr B says fault by the Council means his wife has lost her vehicle.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and Mr B's comments; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (the Act) says where it appears to a local authority that a motor vehicle in their area is abandoned it shall be the duty of the authority, subject to various provisions, to remove the vehicle.
For disposal of removed vehicles the Act says if a local authority considers a removed vehicle is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed or where it does not display a registration mark, it can arrange disposal at any time after its removal.
For all other cases the Act says destruction can take place at any time after the local authority have taken such steps as may be prescribed to find a person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle and either: (i)they have failed to find such a person, or (ii)he has failed to comply with a notice served on him in the prescribed manner by the local authority requiring him to remove the vehicle within the prescribed period from their custody.
The Council's abandonment procedure (the Council’s procedure) says if a vehicle is suspected of being abandoned the Council will complete an abandoned vehicle inspection sheet. If the vehicle is on private land the Council will identify the landowner and serve a 15 day notice. If the landowner then provides permission to enter the site and remove the vehicle the Council will do so. The Council’s procedure says the Council will make all necessary attempts to locate the vehicle owner and if the vehicle owner is identified the Council will issue a fixed penalty notice and serve a seven-day notice on the owner. If the vehicle owner does not comply with the seven-day notice the Council's procedure allows it to dispose of the vehicle.
The Council's procedure notes there is no legal definition of abandoned. The procedure makes clear officers are to use their discretion and refers to characteristics which are generally common to abandoned vehicles which include: the vehicle is untaxed; there is no current vehicle keeper on the DVLA record; the vehicle has been stationary for a significant amount of time; the vehicle has been significantly damaged or is rundown or unroadworthy, such as having flat tyres or broken windows; the vehicle is burned out; the vehicle lacks one or more of its numberplates; the vehicle contains waste; the vehicle is insecure.
The Council’s procedure makes clear this is not an exhaustive list and the vehicle does not have to display all elements of the list to be considered abandoned. The Council’s procedure makes clear officers should ensure there are enough of the indicators present before considering the vehicle abandoned.
The Council's procedure says abandoned vehicles which do not fall within the category for immediate disposal can be disposed of at any time after the Council has taken steps to find the person that appears to be the owner of the vehicle and where that person has been contacted and provided with a seven-day notice, which they have not responded to.
To identify the owner of a vehicle the Council's procedure says it should contact the DVLA and police in whose area the vehicle was found to attempt to identify the owner's details.
What happened Mr B’s wife’s vehicle was parked at a caravan park. Mr B says he and his wife were evicted illegally from the caravan park. The Council was notified of an abandoned vehicle at the caravan park on 7 October 2021. That was Mr B’s wife’s vehicle. The information the Council received was that the vehicle had been abandoned for two months and was causing an obstruction.
A Council officer visited the site and made enquiries with the police national computer, which identified an address for the registered keeper for the vehicle. After receiving permission from the manager of the caravan site the Council removed the vehicle and stored it while it wrote to Mr B’s wife at the address registered on the police national computer. The letter the Council sent to Mr B’s wife told her she needed to contact the Council within seven days. The letter said if Mr B’s wife did not make contact within seven days the Council would dispose of the vehicle. The Council received no contact and sent the vehicle for disposal on 1 November. Mr B subsequently contacted the Council on 8 November about the vehicle.
Analysis Mr B says the Council was at fault for removing his wife’s vehicle when the vehicle was not abandoned. Mr B says the Council acted on the advice of a third party whose information was incorrect and that it made insufficient attempts to locate Mr B’s wife who was living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council.
I appreciate Mr B believes the information the Council received about the vehicle was incorrect. Mr B says the vehicle was not abandoned and instead his wife had been evicted from the site and was prevented from returning to it to collect her belongings, including the vehicle. I understand Mr B’s concerns in those circumstances. However, I have seen nothing in the documentary records to suggest the Council had any reason not to rely on the information provided by the person that made the referral. I also set out in paragraph 11 the procedure the Council has to follow when deciding whether a vehicle has been abandoned. In this case the Council was satisfied the vehicle had been abandoned as it had been stationary for a significant period of time, was open, had keys in the ignition and was not roadworthy. As the Council followed the right process before deciding to treat the vehicle as abandoned I have no grounds to criticise it for removing the vehicle.
I am also satisfied that before destroying Mr B’s wife’s vehicle the Council followed the right process. I say that because I note the Council identified the registered keepers address and wrote to Mr B’s wife at that address to give her seven days to make contact. As Mr B’s wife had not made contact with the Council within seven days I cannot criticise it for disposing of the vehicle after that. The Council followed its procedure here and is therefore not at fault.
In reaching that view I recognise Mr B’s wife was not living at the address recorded by DVLA, which is the same information as on the police national computer. I also recognise Mr B says his wife was living at an address provided by the Council as a temporary address. However, the Council’s procedure is clear that if a vehicle has a registration mark checks should be made with the DVLA and police to identify the owner’s details. That is what the Council did in this case. Given there is a legal requirement for vehicle owners to update DVLA with a new address and failing to do that is an offence, I do not criticise the Council for relying on the information from the police national computer about the address for Mr B’s wife. As the Council issued the seven-day notice to the address held by DVLA and as neither Mr B nor his wife made any contact with the Council within seven days of that notice I cannot criticise the Council for disposing of the vehicle. I am satisfied neither the removal nor the disposal of the vehicle were affected by any fault on the Council’s part.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman