Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the allotment association committee or the Council’s oversight of the committee’s complaints handling. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and, in any case, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X made a number of complaints in relation to the handling of her complaints in relation to an allotment and complaints made about her, and the allotment association’s treatment of her since 2019. She also complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her complaints and its oversight of the allotment association.
2. Ms X said the events had caused such distress she had been forced to give up her allotment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Ms X made a number of complaints to us from 30 April 2025 onwards. She previously complained to us about related matters in 2021 so she was aware of the time limits we usually apply. Although Ms X has some health issues, I do not consider there are good reasons to consider the period before July 2024 when the first warning was issued to her under the current Code of Conduct.

What happened

9. In July 2024, the allotment association’s committee (the committee) issued a formal warning to Ms X following a verbal altercation with another plot holder, Ms Y. She declined the chance to discuss the matter at a meeting, saying she preferred communications to be in writing. In a written response, sent after she had been provided with a copy of the original complaint and witness statements, Ms X strongly denied the allegations, and said it was Ms Y who was in breach of the Code of Conduct, not her.
10. In early September 2024, Ms X met with councillor B and a representative from organisation A (that previously oversaw the allotment association, on behalf of the Council), to discuss her concerns about the conduct of the committee and some plot holders. It was agreed a meeting would be arranged with the committee to discuss Ms X’s concerns, with councillor B present to support her. I understand the meeting did not happen because a key member of the committee was unwell.
11. In January 2025, Ms X raised concerns about how she had been treated by the committee and by organisation A. Organisation A responded, in February 2025, that:
• it could not refer the formal warning back to the committee. The warning was in line with the Code of Conduct and it could only take action if there was evidence of a breach in the process; and
• in view of the nature and volume of Ms X’s communications, it was adding her to its vexatious complainant’s list, which would mean it may not consider further complaints from her.
12. Ms X was unhappy with the response and complained to the Council, which responded in April 2025. It said it had reviewed the records and was satisfied organisation A had carried out a thorough investigation. It said the allotment function had since been brought back under the direct control of the Council, which would consider any future complaints. It said it had offered to assist her to move to a different allotment site for a fresh start, which she had declined. It also offered to assist in arranging meditation to rebuild relationships at the allotment.
13. In the meantime, in March 2025, a further allegation was made about Ms X’s behaviour. Again, Ms X provided a statement disputing the allegations. The committee issued a second warning on 25 April 2025. The warning noted there was some inconsistency between the various accounts of the incident but that, on balance, it considered Ms Z’s account was more likely. It suggested both parties avoid contact with each other.
14. Ms X made a further complaint to the Council, in which she said she had been discriminated against. She said it was the second time a warning had been issued after an incident with no independent witness to confirm what had happened. She also said her own complaints about the conduct of committee members and other plot holders had not been taken seriously, and that organisation A had stopped her making further complaints for a year.
15. The Council responded, in May 2025, that it had considered the concerns Ms X had raised, but it would not investigate further because:
• There was no evidence of discrimination in the complaints handling that required further investigation and the committee was entitled to make a balance of probabilities decision;
• Ms X had made an excessive number of complaints in relation to inter-personal matters that could not be proven one way or another and which had taken up a disproportionate amount of resource to respond to. Under its managing unreasonable behaviour policy, it reserved the right to limit contacts and complaints handling in order to manage this; and
• Based on the evidence provided, it did not consider further investigation into the committee’s complaints handling would lead to a different outcome and it advised her she could complain to us, which she did.

My assessment

16. We can consider complaints about bodies acting on behalf of the Council and complaints about the Council’s oversight of bodies, such as the allotment association. That said, we are not an appeal body. Unless there was fault in the organisation’s decision-making process, we could not comment on the decision reached.
17. Having considered relevant records in relation to the two warnings issued, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the committee’s decision-making process or in the Council’s oversight of this, to justify our involvement. In addition, it is unlikely that further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome from the Council’s own investigation. For these reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there Is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement, and because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman