Summary: Mr X complains the Council has unfairly evicted him from his allotment plot. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has acted unfairly in deciding to evict him from his allotment plot for failing to adequately maintain it. He says the Council ignored work he did; did not take his personal circumstances into account and has not shared information. He wants to be given another chance to maintain his plot.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. For the last 11 years Mr X has been a tenant of a Council allotment plot. Between 2012 and 2018 the Council sent Mr X a number of letters and notices about the lack of plot maintenance. However, Mr X continued to retain tenancy of the plot.
6. In August 2020, the Council sent Mr X a further lack of maintenance letter. In September Mr X called the Council to say he would be tidying the plot within the next week. A month later, following a re-inspection, the Council issued him with a Notice to Quit.
7. Mr X contacted the Council to say he had tidied the plot and asked that it be visited so this could be seen. The Council confirmed the termination of his tenancy. Mr X challenged the Notice to Quit and the Council considered the matter under its complaints procedure.
8. At Stage 1 the Council told Mr X the Notice to Quit had been properly issued and that it did not uphold his complaint. It referred to the six Lack of Maintenance warning letters and the four termination notices it had sent him over the last eight years. It noted the three previous notices had been withdrawn because he had promised to improve the plot and because he had cited ill health as a reason for his lack of activity.
9. In response to Mr X’s claim that he had carried out work at the site as he had promised, the Council told him it had been too little too late and that there was no evidence any crops had been grown on the plot all year. It said it had issued lack of maintenance letters to other tenants for overgrown neglected plots and that it had a large waiting list of people who wanted a plot.
10. At Stage 2 the Council reviewed the case and, while it noted Mr X’s personal circumstances and addressed the points he had raised, it did not uphold his complaint.
11. At Mr X’s request, the Council later sent him a copy of his tenancy agreement and the allotment rules and regulations.

Assessment

12. The Council inspected Mr X’s plot, along with plots belonging to other tenants, and found its condition to be unsatisfactory. It considered the work Mr X had done but found it insufficient and this, along with the lack of evidence he had grown any crops all year, led to its decision to end the tenancy.
13. We cannot review the merits of this decision no matter how strongly Mr X may disagree with it and I do not consider an investigation is likely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman