London Borough of Merton (24 006 303)
Category : Other Categories > Land
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 03 Sep 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an allotment tenancy as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.
The complaint
- Mr X complained the Council is not adhering to its own policy when allocating allotment tenancies. Mr X says he is on the wait list for an allotment and was negatively affected by this. Mr X wants the Council to investigate all transfers to co-tenants and to void the tenancy awarded in the case he complained about.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
- The Council operates a system by which co-tenants on allotment tenancies can become the main tenant after a two-year wait requirement. Mr X complained about a case where such a transfer was made before two years had elapsed. Mr X considers this shows allotment holders are exploiting this provision to avoid the 23 year wait list for an allotment, and that the Council is not adhering to its own policy.
- In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council explained the transfer to the co-tenant had taken place six weeks early due to difficult and extenuating circumstances regarding the health of the primary allotment tenant. The Council acknowledged that this was contrary to the two-year wait policy.
My assessment
- While the transfer took place early, I do not consider this is necessarily evidence of fault by the Council. While policies provide a framework for decisions to be made, councils have discretion to step outside of policy, in exceptional circumstances. Indications are that this is what happened in this case and that it is unlikely we would find fault if we investigated further.
- While I recognise the strong feelings Mr X has about this, his complaint does not provide evidence of a systemic problem in how allotment tenancies are allocated and does not in my view provide grounds for us to look more broadly at the Council’s decisions in this regard. We also could not recommend that the Council voids the tenancy already given.
- For these reasons, we will not investigate.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman