Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to repossess an allotment. Nor will we investigate how the Council considered Ms X’s representations. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. In any case we could not achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council were wrong to repossess an allotment from her at a time point when she needed extra support. She was also unhappy it did not properly consider her representations to stop its repossession.
2. Ms X has said this has left her feeling bullied and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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 is seeking.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2023, Ms X took possession of an allotment from the Council. In May 2024, the Council said it inspected the plot and found it in a poor state. According to the complaint correspondence, Ms X said she had been unable to attend to her plot and agreed to tidy it. Ms X told the Council why she had been unable to attend to her plot before this time.
8. In June, after the Council carried out another inspection it issued Ms X with a dirty plot notice (DPN), giving her 30 days to address the state of the plot. In July after another inspection, the Council issued Ms X with a notice to quit (NTQ), because there had been no improvement.
9. In August, following contact from Ms X, the Council, agreed to suspend its notice while it considered Ms X’s concerns about its decision. Ms X wanted an independent panel to hear her concerns and she asked the Council for further information about its decision.
10. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to repossess Ms X’s allotment, because it is unlikely we would find fault. The Council explained Ms X had agreed to the tenancy conditions and when the Council decided these had been breached, it went through an informal and then a formal process, giving Ms X an opportunity to resolve matters. These actions are appropriate.
11. Nor will we investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered her representations about this matter, because it is unlikely we would find fault here either. The Council explained it uses its complaints procedures to hear appeals of this nature and provided Ms X an opportunity to put forward her representations about the substantive decision.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. In any case, we would not investigate, because Ms X wants the Council to remove the NTQ and an investigation by us would not achieve this outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman