Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to create an unusual allotment plot without considering the impact on him. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained about the Council’s decision to create an unusual allotment plot without considering the impact on him and about its handling of his complaint. He told us the Council’s actions have affected his property and home life and created tension with neighbours.

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
• 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. I have considered the information Mr B provided. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to consider his rights when it allowed the creation of an allotment plot next to his home. He told us, contrary to the Council’s assurances, its officer failed to contact them after he raised his concerns. Mr B said the Council’s officer informed the allotment tenant of his complaint without his consent. Mr B complained the Council’s final response to his complaint was inadequate and one-sided.
5. To put things right Mr B would like the Council to consider his complaint adequately and equitably by meeting him at his property and fully consider the impact on him of the new plot. He would also like the Council to review its guidelines and procedures.
6. When it responded to Mr B’s complaint the Council said demand for allotments in its area outstrips supply. So, when officers think they can maximise growing space by altering plot layouts or sizes, they do so.
7. The creation of an allotment does not normally require planning permission if there are no proposals to erect buildings on it. There was no requirement on the Council to consider the impact of the new plot on a third party before agreeing to go ahead. So we would have no safe basis on which to find the Council at fault for failing to do this.
8. Mr B raised concerns about the way the plot was being used by the allotment tenant as well as the decision to create it in the first place. The Council has a tenancy agreement with its allotment tenants. It would not be fault for the Council to visit an allotment tenant if it is possible they may be in breach of their tenancy agreement.
9. We do not normally investigate a complaint about a council’s complaint-handling if we are not investigating the substantive matter which led to the complaint. In this case the main impact of the Council’s action is the effect on Mr B’s amenity. If we found fault in the Council’s complaint-handling, this would not, of itself, give us sufficient justification to recommend the remedies Mr B is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman