Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to serve him with a ‘Notice to Quit’ his allotment. This is because there is not enough fault in how the Council reached its decision, and so we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has served him with a Notice to Quit his allotment. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. In August 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X with a Notice to Quit his allotment. It said this was because of a breach of clause 2.3 of his Allotment Tenancy Agreement. This states:

“Cultivation - The Tenant must keep the Allotment Garden clean, reasonably free from weeds and otherwise maintain it in a good state of cultivation, and must keep the boundaries of the Allotment Garden tidy and in a good state of repair. The Tenant must also keep any pathway or cart-track included in or abutting on the Allotment Garden (or, in the case of any pathway or track abutting on the Allotment Garden and any other allotment garden or allotments gardens, the half-width of it on which the Allotment Garden abuts) reasonably free from weeds.”

6. Mr X complained to the Council because he disagreed with its decision. Mr X sent the Council photographs to show how “nice” his allotment was. In its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council included a chronology of events:
• The Council wrote to Mr X in December 2017 inviting him to a meeting to discuss his allotment. The meeting was scheduled for 08 December 2017 but was rearranged to 05 January 2018. This was cancelled and rearranged for May 2018.
• Notices of Termination had been sent in February, March and December 2018 because Mr X had not paid his rent (and in the case of the February notice failed to properly cultivate his allotment plot).
• The Council wrote to Mr X in January 2019 because it said his allotment was not being adequately cultivated. This breached clause 2.3 of Mr X’s allotment tenancy (see above). Mr X had been given 14 days to rectify the problem. If a reinspection showed no visible improvement the Council would start the process to end Mr X’s tenancy.
• The Council wrote to Mr X on 02 August 2019, because it had decided his allotment was not being adequately cultivated. The Council also said Mr X was in breach of clause 3.3. of his tenancy agreement which said the allotment should not be used “for any purpose, other than use for agriculture, for which it has been appropriated under any statutory provision.” The Council gave Mr X 14 days to rectify the problem. As above, if a reinspection showed no sign of improvement, the Council would start the process to end Mr X’s allotment tenancy.
• On 19 August 2019, the Council sent Mr X a Notice to Quit due to an ongoing breach of clause 2.3 of his tenancy agreement.
7. The Council sent Mr X photographs of his allotment along with its stage 2 response to his complaint. The Council’s final response said officers had “displayed a significant amount of tolerance over a long period of time before seeking to terminate your [Mr X’s] occupation of the allotment.” The Council said it would not escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process.
8. The Ombudsman is not a right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We cannot question a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way the decision was reached. We cannot question the professional judgment of council officers where their decisions can be justified and are backed by supporting evidence.
9. While I know Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, this does not mean it is wrong. For the Ombudsman to become involved, there would need to be fault in how the decision was reached. The Council can end a person’s allotment tenancy if it considers them to have breached the terms and conditions that form part of their tenancy. The Council has visited Mr X’s allotment which led to the various letters it sent him. The view of council officers is that Mr X is in breach of his tenancy. The Council has sent Mr X photographs in support of its decision. Based on the information I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough fault in how the Council reached its decision, and so we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman