Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant being evicted from an allotment. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B was evicted from an allotment because he broke a rule which led to the immediate termination of his agreement with the Council. He says the Council did not evict another allotment holder who was involved and gave him too little time to remove his possessions.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B which included the Council’s response to his complaint. I have also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council caused Mr B injustice that warrants our involvement. He has stated he broke the rule that led to his eviction. While I understand he may consider it unfair, it was for the Council to decide whether anyone else should be evicted. Whether they were or not did not directly cause Mr B a significant injustice. The Council has stated Mr B removed his possessions by the deadline it gave him.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman