Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to repossess the complainant’s allotment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to repossess her allotment. She says the decision was arbitrary and rests on her management of the plot rather than the degree of cultivation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the allotment rules. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The allotment rules say the tenant must keep the plot at least 50% cultivated. This includes preparing the ground, planting, growing and harvesting crops. The remainder of the plot must be free of weeds and the area must look maintained. The Council will send one warning letter if a plot does not meet this rule. If the plot is not brought up to standard the Council can terminate the tenancy without giving any more warnings.
5. Ms X signed a tenancy for a plot. In 2021 the Council issued a warning letter regarding non-cultivation. Ms X sent an email explaining her plans for the plot.
6. The Council sent another warming letter in April 2022 because it had inspected the plot and found it did not meet the cultivation threshold. It asked Ms X to confirm if she wanted to keep the plot and said it would do another inspection in a month’s time.
7. The Council inspected the plot again and found it still did not meet the standard. It repossessed the plot.
8. Ms X disagrees with the decision and denies the plot is uncultivated.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We do not act as an appeal body and it is not our role to decide if the Council should have repossessed the plot. I can only consider if the Council followed the correct process.
10. The Council followed the correct process by inspecting the plot, raising concerns and then ending the tenancy after the plot was not brought up to the required standard. This decision was taken after officers inspected the site and there are no grounds for me to question their judgment. The tenancy rules explain what constitutes 50% cultivation and most people would have a common-sense understanding of what a well maintained and cultivated plot look likes. I have seen photographs of the plot and there are no grounds to find fault with the view taken by the Council about the degree of cultivation. In addition, the Council was only required to send one warning letter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman