Recommendations not implemented: Final Opinion on unjust towing of a vehicle

Recommendations not implemented: Final Opinion on unjust towing of a vehicle

Published October 18, 2024

In accordance with Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman, Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon, has forwarded to the House of Representatives the Final Opinion on a case involving the towing of a vehicle by the Local Enforcement System Agency (LESA). The case raises concerns about the lack of proper evidence to justify the towing action and the unfairness of the imposed penalty.

The complaint

The complainant, the appointed driver of a vehicle, claimed that on 7th February 2024, he parked his vehicle on Triq it-Tabib Chetcuti in Mosta. At the time, no temporary “tow zone” notices were displayed. Upon returning to the location the next day, he discovered that LESA officials had towed his vehicle earlier in the day at around 8:47 am. The complainant paid the €200 penalty to retrieve his vehicle but filed an appeal with LESA, contesting the legality of the towing.

In his appeal, he noted that no valid evidence was shown to prove the presence of the required “tow zone” notices 48 hours before the towing. He also argued that despite his contact number being displayed on the vehicle, no one attempted to contact him before the vehicle was towed. His appeal was rejected, prompting him to lodge a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Facts and findings

As part of its investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman requested evidence from LESA to show that the “tow zone” notices were affixed in the area 48 hours before the towing action. LESA provided three photographs:

• A photo of the metadata of a .jpg file dated 5 February 2024. However, this did not show the actual “tow zone” notice and could refer to any photo taken on that date.
• A photo of a “tow zone” notice affixed to a cream wall, but with no clear indication of where it was located.
• A higher-resolution version of the second photo, showing the details of the notice, but again lacking context to prove that it was posted in the specific area where the complainant’s vehicle was parked.

The Ombudsman also found that while the complainant believed he should have been contacted before the vehicle was towed, LESA is not legally obligated to do so. Simply having a phone number displayed on a vehicle does not create an obligation for enforcement officers to use it.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Ombudsman concluded that the photographic evidence provided by LESA was inadequate. The photos did not confirm that the “tow zone” notices were posted in a visible location, in the correct area, or 48 hours before the towing occurred. In particular, the use of metadata as evidence was deemed unacceptable.

As a result, the Ombudsman recommended that the complainant be reimbursed the €200 penalty.

Outcome

The Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, and Employment informed the Ombudsman that it did not agree with his conclusions and recommendations and, therefore, would not implement them. In accordance with the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman sent the report to the Prime Minister, and since no action was taken, the report was forwarded to Parliament.