Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending one of the complainant’s two allotment tenancy agreements. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and insufficient evidence of significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that the Council and the third-party management company (the Company) it uses had treated Mr Y unfairly by terminating the tenancy for an allotment plot. Mr X claims that Mr Y has been discriminated against.

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, and
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, and the Council’s relevant policies and procedures.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y had tenancy agreements for two separate allotment plots (Plot A and Plot B).
6. The Council and the Company told Mr Y that they were terminating the tenancy agreement for Plot A. This followed a period where the Council decided Plot A was not being maintained to the standard set out in the allotment tenancy agreement.
7. This decision was in line with the Council’s and the Company’s allotment tenancy agreement terms, and the associated policies and procedures.
8. We cannot act as a point of appeal where we find Councils have taken decisions properly. There is insufficient evidence of procedural fault by the Council. I recognise Mr X and Mr Y might disagree with the decision the Council reached but it was one it was entitled to reach so we cannot question it.
9. The Council told Mr Y that he was able to continue holding the tenancy for his second plot (Plot B) as this had been maintained to a higher standard and in line with the requirements of the tenancy agreement.
10. Mr Y continues to hold a tenancy for Plot B which he can continue to use. Therefore there is insufficient evidence that Mr Y has been caused significant injustice.
11. There is no evidence that the Council has acted differently towards Mr Y than it would to another allotment holder in the same circumstances. But we cannot say if an organisation has breached the Equality Act 2010 or discriminated against someone unlawfully as this can only be done by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint made on behalf of Mr Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman