Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly removed and destroyed his car. Mr X says the Council has accepted fault but its offer of £1,000 falls short of the amount he is seeking. The Council has agreed to award Mr X £903.91 for his quantifiable loss and £200 for his distress, time and trouble caused by the Council’s fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly removed and destroyed his car. Mr X says the Council has admitted its fault, but the insurer’s offer of compensation does not cover his losses.
2. Mr X says the insurers offered £1,000 but he is seeking compensation of £19,699.70.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr X parked his car on a council owned road in late 2021 before going on holiday. Mr X parked his car in a legally compliant manner.
8. At the end of December 2021, a council enforcement officer issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Mr X’s car because of the belief Mr X had abandoned the car. The enforcement officer attached this PCN to the vehicle.
9. The Council sent a warning letter to Mr X’s address on 5 January 2022 advising if Mr X did not respond to this contact within 28 days it would remove Mr X’s vehicle.
10. On 2 February 2022, a contractor acting for the Council removed Mr X’s vehicle and impounded it.
11. Both the contractor and the Council wrote to Mr X on 9 February 2022 to confirm the car had been impounded. The Council advised Mr X it would destroy his car if he failed to make contact and collect it before 18 March 2022. The contractor advised it would do so after 10 days from the date of the letter.
12. On 28 February 2022, the contractor destroyed Mr X’s car.
13. Mr X returned from holiday on 2 March 2022 and tried to contact the contractor over the telephone without success.
14. On 3 March 2022, Mr X attended the car impound lot for the contractor to find the contractor had destroyed his car. Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X said:
• He had legally parked his car, it was in good condition, was insured and had a long MOT and Tax remaining. Mr X disputed he had abandoned his car and explained he was on holiday.
• He tried to contact the Council’s contractor but no one answered and the voicemail inbox was full.
• He attended the contractor’s impound lot today to find they had destroyed his car.
• He had many personal items in the car and sought compensation for both these items and the car itself.
15. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 1 April 2022 to advise it had passed this matter on to the insurers for its contractor. The insurers subsequently offered £1,000 to Mr X for the value of his car based on its age, model and mileage. The insurers supported this offer with a car listed for sale online for a similar value.
16. Mr X responded to the insurers to advise the £1,000 did not account for his full losses. Mr X provided a breakdown of his losses amounting to £19,699.70.
17. The insurers respond to advise it upheld its offer of £1,000.
18. Mr X brought his complaint back to the Council in June 2022 to raise his concerns about the offer of £1,000.
19. The Council provided its Stage 2 complaint response to Mr X. The Council said:
• It accepted its contractors had wrongly impounded and destroyed Mr X’s car.
• It had implemented a system to take extra checks on vehicles in future to prevent such errors reoccurring.
• It upheld the insurers offer of £1,000.
20. In February 2023, Mr X contacted the insurers to ask for payment of the £1,000. The insurers paid this in March 2023.

Analysis

21. The Council has accepted fault for removal and destruction of Mr X’s car. Since the Council has already accepted fault, I will not reinvestigate this part of the complaint. The Council has also put in place suitable steps to try to prevent a reoccurrence of this fault.
22. Mr X’s outstanding complaint is the offer of £1,000 made by the Council does not address the injustice he experienced through the Council’s fault. Mr X provided a breakdown of costs he incurred totalling £19,699.70.
23. The Ombudsman does not act to award compensation in the same manner as the courts. Awards for purely compensatory matters are better dealt with by the Courts. However, when the fault of a council has directly caused a person a quantifiable financial loss, we can consider an award to address this quantifiable loss. We would look to award a cost a person has incurred when they would not have incurred it if not for the fault of the Council.
24. Mr X has provided a breakdown of his losses with evidence to support the costs he has incurred.

Value of Mr X’s old and new cars

25. Mr X has sought slightly over £14,000 for the cost of buying a new car and the repair costs for this new car.
26. The insurers offered Mr X £1,000 for his previous car and paid Mr X this in March 2023.
27. If not for the fault of the Council, Mr X would not have needed to purchase a new car. The loss of Mr X’s previous car was a quantifiable loss linked to the Council’s fault. The insurers have provided evidence of a car of the same model and comparable age and mileage to Mr X’s previous car being sold for £995. The insurers used this to justify the cost for the loss of Mr X’s previous vehicle.
28. There is no evidence to support that Mr X’s previous car was worth more than this £1,000 valuation assigned by the insurers.
29. While Mr X’s new car may be worth more than £1,000, it was Mr X’s choice to purchase a more valuable vehicle. Mr X could have bought a vehicle of similar value. Since this was Mr X’s choice, this is not directly linked to the Council’s fault. Mr X’s new vehicle will also have held its value on purchase and only lose value over time. Since the vehicle of extra value is owned by Mr X this is not a loss.
30. Additionally, while Mr X needed to have repairs completed on his new vehicle, there is nothing to say Mr X would not have needed to complete repairs on his previous vehicle. This is an ongoing cost as part of owning a motor vehicle and not directly linked to the Council’s fault.

Additional Insurance cost for new vehicle

31. Mr X has sought £192.48 for the extra cost of insuring his new vehicle through to the end of the insurance term. Mr X has evidenced this cost.
32. Changing car insurance part-way through incurs costs. Mr X had no intention of changing his vehicle and only did so because of the Council’s fault. As such, the extra insurance costs Mr X has incurred for updating his car insurance midway through its term directly relates to the Council’s fault.
33. This cost of £192.48 is a quantifiable loss Mr X would not have incurred if not for the Council’s fault.

Rental car and taxi

34. Mr X has sought £587.29 for hiring a rental car while he sought a replacement for his old car. Mr X has evidenced this cost.
35. Mr X hired a car for one week following the Council’s destruction of his previous car. Mr X hiring the rental car directly linked to the destruction of his previous car. Mr X would not have needed to do this if he had access to his previous vehicle. As such, this is a quantifiable loss directly linked to the Council’s fault.
36. Hiring the car for one week is not a prolonged period of time and is reflective of a suitable time to seek a replacement car.
37. Mr X also needed to take a taxi to pick up his new vehicle. While Mr X has not been able to evidence this cost, I can estimate the cost of the this taxi at £17.50 given the start and end points. Given that Mr X would need to take this taxi to pick up a vehicle he would not have needed to purchase without the Council’s fault; this is a justifiable quantifiable loss.

Congestion charges and parking permits

38. Mr X lives in an area which requires parking permits for vehicles. These permits cost £10 to register a vehicle.
39. Mr X has evidenced he registered both his rental vehicle and new vehicle for parking permits costing him a total of £20. Mr X’s previous vehicle was registered for a parking permit. Mr X would not have needed to register either of these two vehicles if not for the Council’s fault.
40. Additionally, Mr X incurred a £15 congestion charge for his rental vehicle. As a resident, Mr X would only need to pay £1.50 for the congestion charge. If not for the Council’s fault Mr X would also not have incurred £13.50 of this cost.

Contents of the car

41. Mr X sought £689 for the contents of his vehicle.
42. Mr X has not been able to evidence the contents of his vehicle or provide any evidence to support the cost of most of the contents.
43. The Council has provided photographs of the vehicle before and after it was towed. The photographs provided by the Council do not show any of the contents detailed by Mr X. While this does not mean the contents did not exist, as Mr X could have stored these in the boot, glove-compartment or footwells, it means I cannot evidence the existence, or likely cost, of these items. As such, I cannot evidence a quantifiable financial loss associated with these contents.
44. However, Mr X has been able to evidence a receipt for filling up a tank of fuel costing £73.14 for his new vehicle on purchase dated 20 March 2022. It is unlikely Mr X left his previous vehicle empty of fuel. Given Mr X bought a comparable vehicle to his previous one, it is likely Mr X would have spent a similar amount in fuel to fill up both vehicles. If not for the Council’s fault, Mr X would not have lost the fuel in his previous vehicle and needed to fill up the new vehicle on purchase.

Time, trouble and distress

45. Mr X has sought a payment of £3,800 for his time and trouble at £100 per hour.
46. The Ombudsman does not provide a time and trouble award based on an hourly value or, as noted above, in the manner a court would.
47. The Ombudsman’s guidance for both time and trouble and distress outlines that we would only award a payment in the region of £100 to £300 for moderate distress or time and trouble. Any award we make within this scope should be reflective of the degree of difficulty experienced by a complainant.
48. It is clear the Council’s fault put Mr X to difficulty. This was through needing to travel to the contractor’s impound lot, searching for a replacement car and travelling to test and pick up the replacement car. Mr X also experienced distress through the removal and destruction of his car.
49. The Council should apologise to Mr X pay Mr X £200 for the distress, time and trouble the Council’s fault caused him to experience.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 for the distress, time and trouble the Council’s fault caused him to experience.
• Pay Mr X £903.91 for the quantifiable financial loss Mr X experienced because of the Council’s fault.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. There was fault by the Council as the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman