Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a decision to terminate his allotment tenancy and how the Council has handled the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the courts are better placed to consider whether the Council’s actions are libelous or defamatory and whether it should reimburse his legal costs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has wrongly accused him of allotment theft and evicted him from his allotment. He says this has caused distress and he had no alternative but to seek legal advice which has incurred costs. He wants the Council to reimburse his legal fees, discipline relevant officers and apologise to him for how it has managed the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X rented an allotment from the Council. The allotments are run by a management committee on the Council’s behalf. In 2023, the management committee issued Mr X with a notice to quit. It said Mr X had trespassed and stolen item from another person’s plot, and so it had decided to end his tenancy.
7. Mr X refuted the allegations and sought legal advice. The Council offered Mr X a meeting to discuss the matter, but Mr X did not attend. The Council held an appeal hearing overseen by an independent adjudicator. Mr X did not attend, but the hearing considered information submitted by Mr X’s solicitor as well as from the management committee. It did not uphold the appeal.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council accepted there were procedural errors with the first Notice to Quit issued. It issued a new Notice to Quit in August 2023. The Council offered Mr X a meeting to discuss the matter and held an appeal overseen by an independent adjudicator. Mr X had the opportunity to attend the appeal and the appeal considered his representations before reaching its decision. This appears to be in line with the procedures for ending an allotment tenancy and so we will not investigate this.
9. Mr X claims the Council has wrongly accused him of a crime despite him providing evidence to the contrary and a Police decision not to take further action. We will not investigate this. We could not decide whether the Council’s actions are libelous. If Mr X considers the Council’s actions libelous or that it has defamed his character, this matter is better considered by a court.
10. The courts are also better placed to consider whether the Council should reimburse Mr X’s legal costs. It was Mr X’s decision to seek legal advice and we could not ask the Council to reimburse the fees. Only a court can decide whether the Council is liable for these costs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision to end his allotment tenancy and how it conducted the appeal. The courts are better placed to consider whether the Council’s actions are libelous and whether it should reimburse his legal costs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman