The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle the Council removed and destroyed because it believed it to be abandoned. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council removed and destroyed his vehicle because they classed it as being abandoned.
Mr X said this has caused him stress and a financial loss.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained the Council removed and destroyed his vehicle because they had classed it as abandoned. Mr X said he did not receive correspondence about this because the Driving and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) did not provide the Council with his correct address, as well as him having health issues.
Based on the information available, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s handling of this abandoned vehicle, given they made reasonable attempts to notify Mr X before they removed it. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman