Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council unlawfully evicted him from his allotment. This is because investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council acted unlawfully when it terminated his allotment tenancy and evicted him from the plot. He says the Council failed to follow relevant legislation, disputes the allegations that led to the eviction, and says the Council did not provide evidence to support its decision. Mr X says this caused him significant distress and negatively affected his mental health. He wants the Council to reinstate his tenancy and investigate the actions of Council officers.

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 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X occupied an allotment plot under a tenancy agreement with the Council. Following concerns about his conduct and use of the plot, the Council carried out an investigation and decided to terminate his tenancy, giving him seven day’s notice.
7. Mr X says the Council should have provided one month's notice. However, having reviewed the tenancy agreement, I am satisfied it did not require the Council to give a minimum notice period where it considered there had been a breach of the tenancy.
8. The Council relied on reports and information gathered during its investigation before deciding to terminate the tenancy. It set out its reasons for ending the tenancy.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council's decision and disputes the allegations made against him. However, disagreement with a decision is not in itself, evidence of fault. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and cannot question a decision simply because someone disagrees with it. We can only consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was made.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council's actions. In addition, we could not achieve Mr X's desired outcome of reinstating the tenancy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman