Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to terminate Mr X’s allotment tenancy. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not carry out a fair inspection of his allotment before it issued him with a termination notice. He said the Council selectively applied tenancy rules and failed to consider his evidence. Mr X said this has caused him a loss of property, crops and stress. He would like the council to cancel his termination notice, apologise and provide compensation.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council terminated his tenancy stating his plot was uncultivated. Mr X said the Council had not carried out a fair inspection, failed to consider crops growing on the allotment and had applied enforcement actions selectively.
7. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X it had issued two improvement notices for his allotment plot, followed by three inspections in 2025. The Council said it had made reasonable adjustments for Mr X by allowing additional time to complete the required work at the allotment plot.
8. The Council told Mr X that several inspections of his allotment in 2024 and 2025 had shown that it had not met the requirements for 75% of the plot to be cultivated. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s views regarding the crops on the allotment but decided the site did not meet the 75% cultivation requirement. The Council said a review by a senior officer had found no evidence of selective, or targeted enforcement of allotment rules.
9. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a Council’s decision if it followed the correct process. The evidence shows the Council served the required notices and conducted site inspections before terminating Mr X’s tenancy. It considered his complaint about this and maintained its decision. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.
10. Mr X also complained about a data breach, he said the Council had denied that a data breach had taken place.
11. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights.
12. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. The ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to approach the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the Information Commissioner’s office is better placed to consider part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman