Summary: Mrs Z complains about the Council’s handling of issues at Ms X and Mr X’s allotment. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of fault. While the Council acted within the general framework of the headlease, it did not take sufficient steps to satisfy itself that the eviction process and the boundary works undertaken by the allotment association were handled in line with the relevant legal and lease requirements once concerns were raised. In particular, the Council did not have a clear evidential basis on which to be satisfied that Mr X’s tenancy had been lawfully ended. This contributed to avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z brings a complaint on behalf of Mr X and Ms X. Mr X and Ms X complain that the Council failed to adequately address their family's concerns regarding an Allotment Federation and its governing body. They state that after Mr X was evicted from his allotment, members of the association caused criminal damage to their property by unlawfully erecting a new fence on their boundary. Mr X and Ms X assert that, as a result of the Council's inaction and the handling of their complaints, their family has experienced significant distress and disruption. They are seeking reimbursement for the damages caused, a resolution regarding Mr X’s eviction, and an overall satisfactory response from the Council to their ongoing issues.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have not investigated

5. I propose not to investigate Mrs Z’s complaint about an alleged data breach by the Council. This is because Mrs Z can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about this matter. It is reasonable for her to do this because the ICO is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Mrs Z and considered the information she provided. I also made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided. Mrs Z and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Allotments

7. Allotments may be managed day-to-day directly and solely by a council, jointly by a council and an AC or similar body, or solely by an AC. Some councils may take administrative actions themselves to manage allotment land and plot holders’ tenancies, while others will contract this out.
8. The roles of councils and ACs in dealing with complaints about allotments also vary. Some councils deal with the entire complaint process; others task an AC or similar body to respond in the first instance, then deal with further complaint stages. Some councils contract out the entire complaint process to the AC and any AC trustees.

Lease

9. The lease between the Council (as landlord) and the Allotment Federation A (as tenant) sets out the terms for use of the site.
10. The permitted use is defined as use of the land “as an Allotment Garden in accordance with Section 22 of the Allotments Act 1922... for the cultivation for production of fruit and vegetables for consumption by the occupier and his family”. The lease prohibits any use that would cause “loss, damage, injury, nuisance or inconvenience” to others.
11. The lease also includes a covenant for quiet enjoyment, meaning the Federation has a right to use the land without interference from the Council, provided it complies with the lease terms.

Allotments Act

12. Where a tenancy is ended for non-payment of rent, the legislation provides that termination may follow if rent remains unpaid after it becomes due. While the Acts do not prescribe a specific form of rent demand, good administrative practice requires clear evidence that the individual tenant was aware rent was due and unpaid before termination action is taken.

Back to top

What happened

13. I have included a summary of some of the key events below. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that happened.

Background

14. The allotment is owned by Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council. The Council leases the land to Allotment Federation A who are responsible for its overall management.
15. Allotment Federation A, in turn, allows local groups such as Allotment Association B to manage the site on a day-to-day basis. This includes tasks like plot allocation, rent collection, and enforcing site rules.
16. The Council does not have a direct legal relationship with Allotment Association B or with individual plot holders. The Council says that, under the terms of the lease, it cannot interfere in how the site is run unless Allotment Federation A breaches the lease agreement.

Events thereafter

17. In early 2023, Mrs Z raised concerns with the Council regarding the treatment of her brother, Mr X, a long-standing allotment holder. Mrs Z stated that Mr X’s plot at the allotment had been taken away by Allotment Association B without clear written communication, and that no adequate support had been offered. Mrs Z also raised issues about alleged trespass and damage to her mother, Mrs X’s garden, including fencing and conifers, which she linked to the actions Allotment Association B.
18. The Council was made aware of the issue by a councillor in February 2023. The Council responded to Mrs Z, explaining that responsibility for the management of the site rests with the Allotment Federation A, who hold a lease from the Council and in turn sub-lease the site to Allotment Association B.
19. Throughout 2023, the Council maintained contact with both Allotment Federation A and Mrs Z. It sought advice from legal colleagues and held a site meeting in September 2023 with Allotment Federation A, Allotment Association B, and Council officers to help facilitate a way forward. Following this meeting, Allotment Association B agreed to draft a letter to Mrs Z, including a goodwill offer to contribute towards fencing costs. The Council continued to monitor developments and encouraged all parties to resolve matters amicably.
20. Mrs Z remained dissatisfied and formally escalated her complaint. The Council’s position remained that it was not able to intervene directly due to the lease arrangements and lack of a direct legal relationship with Allotment Association B.
21. Mrs Z brought her concerns to the Ombudsman after remaining dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of issues relating to Allotment Association B. She believes the Council failed in its duty to intervene despite being provided with what she considers clear evidence of a breach of the lease by Allotment Association B, including a report from an independent Chartered Surveyor regarding boundary issues.

Further enquiries

22. As part of my investigation, I made further enquiries to the Council. Of note, the evidence showed that

• the Council had not been supplied with, and did not hold, a written notice to quit for Mr X;
• the Council had not been supplied with evidence demonstrating that Mr X had been individually notified that rent remained unpaid and that non-payment was relied upon as the basis for ending his tenancy;
• there was no recorded evidence the Council had verified the boundary position before responding to concerns about the fence and alleged trespass;
• the Council had accepted that any damage to the complainants’ fence would be dealt with through the association’s insurers;
• there was no evidence the Council considered whether reasonable adjustments were required when reviewing the eviction process.

Back to top

Analysis

The Council’s role and the lease agreement

23. The Council’s role is governed by the headlease between it and Allotment Federation A. While the lease delegates day-to-day allotment management to the Federation and its sub-associations, the Council retains responsibility for ensuring the Federation acts within the terms of the lease and relevant legislation, but it is not responsible for the Federation’s day-to-day operational decisions or tenancy management. This includes taking reasonable steps to satisfy itself that significant actions taken by the Federation or its associations, such as evictions or works affecting land boundaries, are carried out in accordance with legal and procedural requirements.
24. It is correct that the Council is not responsible for daily operational issues. However, where concerns are raised that actions by an allotment association may not have been handled in line with relevant legal requirements, such as whether the eviction process had been properly followed or may involve works carried out beyond the leased boundary, the Council is expected to make proportionate enquiries to satisfy itself that matters are being handled in line with the lease and relevant legal duties. The evidence shows the Council engaged with the Federation and held discussions, but it did not make substantive enquiries into whether the eviction process had been properly followed and evidenced, or whether the boundary works were authorised. This does not mean the Council was required to supervise or audit routine allotment management, but that proportionate enquiries were required once specific concerns were raised.
25. In this instance, the Council took steps to engage with the Federation and to facilitate discussion between the parties. However, the evidence indicates it relied largely on assurances provided, without seeking further information that would have enabled it to satisfy itself about how key actions had been carried out in practice. In the circumstances, this reflected a shortfall in the level of oversight that was reasonable once the issues were brought to its attention.

Management and oversight of the allotment association

26. Mrs Z raised concerns about the management of the allotment by Allotment Association B. The Council engaged with the relevant parties and sought to facilitate communication between them. However, the Council’s role remained limited by the lease arrangements.
27. The Council held discussions with the Allotment Federation and Allotment Association B and undertook a site visit to encourage dialogue. These actions helped maintain communication, but they did not address the need for specific enquiries into the legality of the eviction process or the boundary works.

Criminal damage and the fence issue

28. The complainants say members of the allotment association removed their existing boundary fence and erected a new fence on their private land. While the question of criminal liability rests with the police, the Council retains responsibilities as landowner and landlord under its headlease. These responsibilities include ensuring that any works carried out by the association fall within the leased allotment area and do not encroach on neighbouring property.
29. The Council says the association promptly referred the damage claim to its insurers, that both parties made allegations about trespass, and that the police determined the issue was a civil matter. The Council also says a site visit was undertaken in September 2023 involving Parks and Legal officers, the Federation and the association, and that compensation was discussed but ultimately referred to insurers. The Council states that it is satisfied the matter is being handled appropriately between insurers, the Federation, the association and the complainants’ solicitor.
30. However, the correspondence provided shows that the dispute did not progress effectively. Communication between the association, its insurers and the complainants’ representatives stalled for extended periods. Insurers reported receiving no contact from the complainants’ solicitor since June 2024, while the complainants’ representative stated no payment had been made and quotes had expired, which prevented further decision-making. The association said it was willing to remove the fence as part of a full and final settlement, but this did not lead to agreed action because the parties were not aligned on next steps. The Council sought updates from the Federation, but there is no evidence it took a coordinating role or attempted to resolve the breakdown in communication. The most recent correspondence shows the Federation acknowledged it had not responded to the complainants’ representative’s most recent email, which contributed to the communication breakdown and delayed progress towards resolving the dispute.
31. In a situation involving allegations of trespass, property damage and a prolonged boundary dispute, good administrative practice required the Council to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the matter was being progressed appropriately under its delegated arrangements. This did not require the Council to adjudicate the civil dispute, resolve the insurance claim, or direct the actions of insurers. However, once concerns were raised about delay and lack of progress, the Council should have satisfied itself that communication between the parties had not broken down and that there was a clear route toward resolution. While the Council remained in contact with the Federation, the evidence does not show it took further steps to address the emerging impasse or to clarify what was required to move the matter forward. This represents a shortfall in the Council’s oversight role rather than responsibility for the underlying dispute itself.
32. The evidence does not show that the Council assessed whether further intervention or clarification was required, even as the dispute remained unresolved for more than a year and the parties expressed ongoing frustration. Although the Council remained in contact with the Federation, it did not take steps to address the impasse or ensure progress was made. On balance, the Council’s response did not fully address the concerns raised about the alleged trespass and damage, nor did it ensure the matter was being effectively managed under its delegated arrangements.

Eviction of Mr X

33. Under the Allotments Acts, a tenancy may only be ended through the service of a written notice to quit, which must give at least one month’s notice and be addressed personally to the tenant. Where termination is said to be for non-payment of rent, the legislation allows this where rent remains unpaid after it becomes due. In such cases, councils should be satisfied there is clear evidence that the individual tenant was aware of the rent due and that non-payment was relied upon as the basis for termination.
34. The Federation and Association told the Council they had repeatedly reminded Mr X about the fee for the 2023 season. This included weekly verbal reminders during meetings between September and November 2022, email reminders to all plot holders, a noticeboard message, and extending the payment deadline to December 2022. The Council relied on this information and stated that a Notice to Quit was issued in January 2023 after payment had not been received.
35. These steps show that the Federation attempted to communicate with plot holders generally. However, the Council has not provided evidence demonstrating that Mr X was individually notified that rent remained unpaid and that this was relied upon as the basis for ending his tenancy. General reminders, emails to all plot holders, or internal rules stating that “non-payment results in termination” did not provide the Council with a clear evidential basis to be satisfied that the tenancy had been lawfully ended when concerns were raised.
36. The decision to end the tenancy was taken by Allotment Association B, but the Council retains responsibility for ensuring allotment management complies with legislation and with the terms of its lease arrangements. When Mr X later complained, and concerns were raised about the process followed, the Council should have sought evidence that the relevant eviction process had been complied with. Instead, it accepted the assurances of the Federation and Association without seeking evidence to satisfy itself that the tenancy had been lawfully ended in accordance with the relevant legislation.
37. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating that non-payment of rent was relied upon as the basis for termination in Mr X’s individual case, and without having satisfied itself that the eviction complied with the relevant legislation, the Council did not have a sound basis for concluding Mr X’s tenancy had been lawfully ended.

Consideration of the complainant’s comments

38. I have carefully considered the complainant’s explanation that both Ms X and Mr X have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. However, based on the evidence available, I am not persuaded the Council’s actions amounted to a failure to meet this duty. The Council was not directly involved in the day-to-day management of allotments or in Mr X’s eviction. The PSED does not necessarily require Councils to intervene in all third-party actions, particularly where there is no direct provision of service or administrative decision affecting the individual. I have not seen evidence that the Council ignored a specific and actionable equality concern it was obligated to act on.
39. I have also considered the complainant’s arguments about the headlease terms, including the suggestion that the Federation breached several clauses. The complainant also cites legal advice stating the Council retains residual obligations despite the lease. The Council took steps to clarify issues and maintain communication between parties. However, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the Council did not make adequate enquiries into the eviction process or boundary works once concerns were raised. The Council’s reliance on the lease as limiting its involvement was overstated. The lease did not remove its responsibility to satisfy itself that matters were being handled in line with relevant legal requirements, or to respond proportionately to concerns about trespass and damage.
40. The complainant raised concerns that Mr X’s eviction did not follow lawful process. The evidence now confirms the Council did not have sight of a notice to quit, nor did it explore whether the process complied with legal requirements or whether reasonable adjustments were necessary. Although the Council did not carry out the eviction, its role included satisfying itself that the Federation and association were acting within legal and procedural boundaries once concerns were raised. The lack of such enquiries indicates a shortfall in the Council’s oversight.

Findings

41. The Council took steps to engage with the Federation and Allotment Association B once concerns were raised, including seeking internal legal advice and facilitating a site meeting to encourage dialogue. These actions were appropriate within the Council’s role. However, the Council did not go on to take further steps to satisfy itself that the eviction process and the boundary works complied with the relevant process. In particular, it accepted assurances about these matters without requesting further supporting evidence or confirming that the works were carried out within the leased area. This does not suggest the Council was required to supervise day-to-day allotment management, but that proportionate enquiries were needed once specific concerns were raised. The absence of such enquiries amounts to a shortfall in the Council’s oversight under the lease.
42. This fault caused avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble to the complainants. Mr X was left uncertain about whether his eviction had been lawfully handled, which is a significant injustice given his long-standing tenancy and vulnerabilities. Ms X was affected by the ongoing uncertainty about the status of the boundary works adjoining her property.
43. In line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a symbolic financial remedy is appropriate. I consider a payment of £300 to Mr X proportionate to recognise the impact of uncertainty and distress caused by the Council’s oversight failure. A payment of £200 to Ms X fairly acknowledges her distress and uncertainty arising from the unresolved boundary issues.

Back to top

Recommendations

44. To remedy the injustice arising from this complaint, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X and Ms X for the uncertainty and distress caused by its failure to make adequate enquiries into the eviction and boundary works.
2. Make symbolic payments totalling £500 (£300 to Mr X, £200 to Ms X).
3. The Council should involve itself appropriately in the ongoing insurance process by maintaining oversight of the dispute and monitoring whether the matter is progressing. The Council should keep Mr X, Ms X and Mrs Z informed until the insurance process has concluded or a clear route to resolution has been established.
4. Review and update internal procedures for oversight of allotment associations, including checks on eviction processes, boundary works, and record keeping. Provide evidence of completion within 3 months.
45. The Council will carry out actions a-b within one month, action c-d within 3 months, and provide evidence of completion to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of fault. While the Council acted within the general framework of the headlease, it did not take sufficient steps to satisfy itself that the eviction process and the boundary works undertaken by the allotment association were handled in line with the relevant legal and lease requirements once concerns were raised. In particular, the Council did not have a clear evidential basis on which to be satisfied that Mr X’s tenancy had been lawfully ended. This contributed to avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman