Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of issues relating to his allotment, where he says he was bullied and harassed. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome. We also cannot investigate allegations of criminal matters.

The complaint

2. Mr X complains that he unable to use his allotment due to harassment by the Council officer and the Council’s failure of duty towards him. Mr X says the Council made false allegations without evidence. It twisted his video evidence of him being harassed into a further accusation against him. It ignored corruption, allowed a hostile environment leading to assault and property damage, and failed to protect his safety, even after harassers came to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
   (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains that he cannot use his allotment because of harassment by other plot holders and the conduct of a Council officer. He says the Council failed to protect him, repeated false allegations about his behaviour, and misused video evidence he provided.
7. These events remain disputed. The accounts given by those involved are conflicting.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a worthwhile outcome. We were not present, and there is no independent evidence that would allow us to decide whose version of events is correct.
9. The Council’s Anti‑Social Behaviour (ASB) team investigated the allegations and counter‑allegations. A different Council team later reviewed the ASB handling at Stage two.
10. The Council accepted limited fault because it did not speak to Mr X before issuing an advisory letter about the counter-allegations made against him.
11. To remedy this, the Council apologised, retracted some of the wording in the advisory letter, recorded Mr X’s denial of the counter-allegations on file, and confirmed it would take no further action against him. The Council also acknowledged that mediation should have been considered and offered to all parties involved earlier. The Council also to move Mr X to another allotment plot, which he accepted.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add anything to the investigation or achieve a worthwhile outcome. The Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice caused by the faults it identified
13. Allegations relating to assault, threats, harassment, or damage to property are criminal matters. These fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are matters for the police

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome. We also cannot investigate allegations of criminal matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman