Agenda item

Joanne Howells - Service Manager, Antisocial Behaviour Team and Stephanie Waterford – Head of Public Protection and Enforcement were in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the Abandoned Vehicles report.

Noting that, between October 2024 and July 2025, the ASB Team had only issued 3 FPNs for wilful abandonment of vehicles on a public highway, Members enquired why this number was so low. In response, it was confirmed that the low number could be attributed to enforcement challenges in terms of evidence. Members heard that DVLA delays did not cause enforcement issues.

The Committee enquired how Hillingdon’s enforcement figures compared to those of other local authorities. Officers noted that other local authorities faced similar challenges. It was agreed that enforcement benchmarking data against other local authorities would be sourced and circulated to the Committee via Democratic Services.

In response to Members’ questions regarding the use of ANPR cameras, the Committee was informed that Hillingdon did not utilise ANPR in relation to stationery abandoned vehicles. However, it was confirmed that the ANPR system was used to log vehicles that moved around the Borough.

Members sought further clarification as to the percentage of the cost for removing vans or vehicles which was covered by the Council. In response, officers confirmed that the majority of the cost was covered by the West London Waste Authority. The Council operated a contract with them, and contractors removed vehicles on behalf of Hillingdon Council and other boroughs across Greater London. Members were informed that, when vehicle owners came forward, they bore the cost of storage and removal, which contractors recovered directly. For vehicles recovered but not collected, the Council was responsible for storage and destruction costs.

Councillors asked whether there was active patrolling across the Borough to identify abandoned vehicles, such as those with weeds growing underneath them, and enquired whether there was any collaboration with the police to identify stolen vehicles. Officers confirmed that, in the past six months, 351 cases had been assigned to officers, with 236 site visits conducted. Officers inspected vehicles, took photographs, and made the necessary enquiries. The Council worked with local police teams who checked whether vehicles were stolen and took appropriate action. Members heard that stolen vehicles were not removed by the Council.

Regarding vehicles parked on private land, the Committee was advised that, if the landowner objected to removal within 15 days, the Council could not proceed with removal. In cases where there was an environmental hazard, such as someone living in the vehicle or a rat infestation, it was confirmed that the vehicle could not be removed under abandoned vehicle legislation. However, the Council could pursue removal under Environmental Protection and statutory nuisance legislation.

In response to their questions regarding the average officer time spent investigating a suspected abandoned vehicle case, Members were informed that the time varied and was difficult to quantify without a time-motion study. The process included site visits, DVLA checks, correspondence with registered owners, and coordination with contractors. Officers sometimes needed to revisit sites multiple times due to objections or removal issues. The Committee heard that over 600 misdirected cases had been triaged by the front-door team, which did not meet the definition of abandoned vehicles. These included vehicles that were taxed or had valid MOTs. The triage process was very resource intensive.

In respect of data on suspected abandoned vehicles linked to Heathrow travellers, officers stated that such cases were screened out as nuisance parking and not processed as abandoned vehicles. The Council did not collect data on whether vehicles belonged to holiday travellers.

Members sought further clarity as to what percentage of removed vehicles were not collected. It was confirmed that, in the past six months, 87 vehicles had been removed. Only two had been claimed by registered owners, and 57 had been destroyed.

Councillors enquired whether there had been an increase in abandoned vehicles since the introduction of ULEZ in London. Officers agreed to provide before-and-after figures following the meeting.

With regard to “surrender your car” initiatives to help residents dispose of vehicles, it was noted that no such initiatives were run by the Council. However, Government scrappage schemes existed at the national or London-wide level.

The Committee sought further information regarding the removal of HGV trailers in areas like Springfield Road. Officers emphasised that the Council was aware of the issue. Removal was complicated due to size and occupancy. It was confirmed that several cases were currently open relating to Springfield Road. With regard to other hotspots for trailers, Members were informed that data collection was underway to identify such areas and enable proactive enforcement.

In response to Members’ queries regarding staffing, it was noted that the six officers who dealt with abandoned vehicles also covered a wide range of other issues including fly-tipping, littering, highway obstructions, and overgrown hedges. It was noted that abandoned vehicles were among the top three categories of service requests. It was further confirmed that enforcement responsibilities were split between LBH-employed staff and contracted services. On-street enforcement was contracted out. The Council had six street enforcement officers and two senior investigators for complex cases.

Further to their questions regarding the removal of vehicles on private land, Members were informed that, if a landowner objected during the 15-day notice period, the Council was not at liberty to remove the vehicle in question. However, in cases where there was an environmental hazard, the Council would use alternative legislation such as Environmental Protection to address the issue.

In respect of the rollout of the Love Clean Streets app it was highlighted that the Council was working with digital and intelligence teams to develop process maps and configurations. No fixed start date was committed, but an indicative go-live for the first stage was around November 2025.

It was confirmed that the decision to engage with the app had been made by the Council’s digital and intelligence team. The app was part of a broader solution to improve issue reporting across services.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the content of the report.