Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the accessing of allotments adjacent to their property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to as Mr and Mrs B, complain about the wording used by a Council officer in an email to them which they feel insinuates they stole produce from allotments adjacent to their property. They also complain about the way the Council dealt with their complaint about this matter, its delay in erecting a fence at the boundary and the poor quality of the fence erected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr and Mrs B and the Council. I gave Mr and Mrs B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what they said.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2018, as a result of concerns raised with the Council about matters relating to security at an allotment site and about the theft of produce from the allotments, a Council officer emailed Mr and Mrs B who live adjacent to the site.
5. The penultimate paragraph of the email stated “…several tenants…have reported trespass into the site from your boundary” and that some tenants “believe that access to the allotments is being gained via the fence and peoples produce has been stolen”.
6. Mr and Mrs B read this paragraph to suggest they had stolen the produce and complained to the Council about this. The Council responded by explaining that the email only related to reports received from allotment tenants who were of the view that access had been gained via Mr and Mrs B’s boundary. It made clear that the email did not say that Mr and Mrs B were gaining access and stealing produce, only that access was via their boundary. It further explained that the email had been sent to let Mr and Mrs B know that someone may be accessing the allotments through their property so they could look at securing their boundary if they saw fit.
7. The Council apologised if Mr and Mrs B had been offended by the wording of the email but satisfied itself that this had not been the intention and confirmed that it did not uphold their complaint. However, it advised that it would act on their request to erect a fence to separate the allotments from them.
8. Following the involvement of the complainants’ local councillor, the Council subsequently apologised for its initial response because it acknowledged it would have been fairer to have written to all the properties surrounding the allotments to ensure Mr and Mrs B did not feel unfairly identified. It also confirmed it would erect the fence but having done so, Mr and Mrs B complained about its poor quality and a gap which exists at the end.

Assessment

9. I understand Mr and Mrs B have been upset by this matter and by what they thought the officer’s email insinuated. However, my reading of what the email said accords with the Council’s view of it. It does not say, nor in my view does it insinuate, that Mr and Mrs B were accessing the allotments and stealing produce.
10. The Council properly explained its view, apologised if Mr and Mrs B had been offended and subsequently acknowledged it would have been fairer to have written to all residents surrounding the allotments and not just Mr and Mrs B. It told them it has learnt this lesson so that this will not happen again.
11. As the Council has already apologised, learnt from the lesson and erected the fence, all be it that this work was undertaken later than had initially been indicated, I see no grounds which warrant any further consideration of these matters by the Ombudsman. Matters relating to how the Council dealt with the complaint do not warrant an investigation in isolation.
12. In response to my query regarding the fence, the Council has confirmed it has recently reviewed the boundary and will be erecting additional fencing to close the gap caused by the removal of Mr and Mrs B’s own fence

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman