The Tynwald Commissioner for Administration has issued a sharply critical report into the Department of Infrastructure’s handling of a resident’s vehicle removal.
It highlighted contradictory explanations, questionable use of legal powers and missing documentation across the case.
Across the report, the Commissioner notes that the Department gave multiple, conflicting reasons for removing the car, including claims that the land was adopted highway, private land with an unknown owner, or that the vehicle was abandoned or causing a nuisance.
One passage records the Commissioner’s concern that “written records appear to have been destroyed without first having been digitised”, a key failure given the Department later relied on recollections of unrecorded phone calls.
Confusion
The report also points to confusion over notice requirements. In one cited exchange, the Department told the complainant that no notice was required because the land was adopted highway, while later correspondence acknowledged the land was private.
The Commissioner highlights this inconsistency directly, noting “the various inconsistent explanations given… by the Department” and the absence of a clear, lawful justification for removal.
Another significant issue was the appearance of an unrelated surname on an official release form authorising collection of the vehicle, a detail the complainant described as highly sensitive.
While the Commissioner cannot investigate data‑protection breaches, he states that understanding the context is necessary, and records the Department’s inability to explain how the name was added or why the document was later said to be destroyed.
