Refund in case over unfair towing of car by police

The Ombudsman has recommended a refund for a car owner after finding that his vehicle was unfairly towed away by the police, even though a parking infringement had taken place.

The car had been parked within 12 metres of a bus stop but it was outside the parking bay for buses and there were no double yellow lines prohibiting parking. Double yellow lines were marked behind the bus bay but not in front of the bay, where complainant's car was parked. A few days after the towing of complainant's car, double yellow lines were painted in the area where the car had been towed from.

The Ombudsman said that in this case, there was conflict between what the law stated and what road markings suggested to car owners. Moreover, legal notice 94 of 1997 listed parking situations where towing was to be enforced, and it failed to mention parking within a distance of 12 metres from a bus stop.

Although complaint's car was parked illegally, there was no evidence that it was causing obstruction, inconvenience or nuisance, and a fine for a traffic offence rather than towing would have been a more appropriate deterrent.

It also resulted that written instructions to policemen on towing were not clearly in line with the provisions of the relevant regulations.

In another case, the Ombudsman found that the Planning Authority had granted a permit for a snack bar subject to two conflicting conditions - that no cooking be allowed and that a grease trap be installed.

The case was instituted by an architect who claimed that the authority had ignored his objections to a development application and approved the change of use of a garage into a snack bar.

His objections were twofold: firstly that traffic and associated parking problems could be expected to arise if the premises were converted into a snack bar, and secondly, that the garage exceeded height limitations and the premises were falsely declared as being used as a garage when the building was actually being used as a summer residence.

Investigations showed that the premises were subject to enforcement action because of a number of infringements of the original permit. Nevertheless, the authority's Development Control Commission had approved the change of use to a snack bar subject to the payment of a fine. The case officer's report contained details of the objections but ignored other relevant considerations, including advice by the Planning Control Section.

The Ombudsman said the approval granted by the DCC failed to give due consideration to Structure Plan policies and went against the advice of the Planning Control Section. Moreover, the decision to approve a snack bar without any facilities for cooking and at the same time require the installation of a grease trap might open the door to a situation where it might be difficult at a later stage to effectively enforce these conditions, with consequent bad neighbourliness.

The Ombudsman felt the objection raised by complainant was justified.