Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to overturn a decision by the allotment committee of which he was a member over a disciplinary matter. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council considered an appeal against a decision by his Allotment Committee and overturned its decision to evict an allotment holder from his plot because the Committee decision procedure was flawed. He says the Council did not give sufficient consideration to the Committee’s decision.

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 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X was a member of an allotment committee which carried out a disciplinary procedure on a member who breached the rules with his behaviour and was evicted from his allotment plot. The member appealed to the Council who is the landowner and holder of the title to the site.
6. The Council has a role to provide an independent appeal body outside the allotment committee which administers the site. The Council overruled the committee’s decision to evict the member because it considered the disciplinary procedure to be unsound and against the principles of natural justice. This was primarily because member of the disciplinary hearing were also victim and complainant in the allegations and should not have taken part in the process.
7. Mr X says the Council did not act fairly and the committee’s decision should stand. He says a single council officer should not be able to overturn the view of the committee.

Back to top

Analysis

8. The Council is the final appeal body for decisions taken by the allotment committee which is made up of lay persons. The Council considered that the decision did not meet the requirements of impartiality and fairness and it was entitled to make that decision. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman