Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to terminate his allotment tenancy. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unfairly terminated his allotment tenancy. He says the Council wrongly decided his plot did not meet the required cultivation standard, did not properly consider his mother's disability and other personal circumstances, and treated him differently from other plot holders. He also complains about delays and poor communication, which caused him significant stress and uncertainty. He wants the Council to reconsider the points he raised, explain how it took his mother's disability into account, and show it applied the same standards to other plot holders.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In September 2025 the Council inspected Mr X's allotment plot and decided it did not meet the required cultivation standard and issued Mr X a termination notice. The Council said this was in accordance with the tenancy agreement, which allowed it to terminate a tenancy where a tenant receives two Non-Compliance Notices (NCN) within three consecutive inspections.
6. Mr X appealed the Council's decision and made a complaint. He said seasonal cultivation patterns, his mother's disability, ill health and other personal circumstances had affected his ability to maintain the plot. He also set out the steps he was taking to improve the plot and asked the Council to reconsider the termination.
7. The Council considered Mr X's representations but decided the termination should stand. The Council said the plot had repeatedly failed to meet the required cultivation standard, explaining that it had already given him an opportunity to rectify the issues rather than terminate the tenancy, after issuing him with an NCN in September 2024, because of the personal circumstances he had raised.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council's decision and believes it did not properly take account of his personal circumstances or treat him in the same way as other allotment holders. However, disagreement with a decision is not, by 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 Council reached its decision.
9. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the information Mr X provided, followed the relevant tenancy and enforcement procedures, and gave reasons for its decision. It considered the points Mr X raised about his mother's disability and other personal circumstances but concluded these did not prevent the plot from meeting the required cultivation standard.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, as further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to terminate Mr X's allotment tenancy.
11. Mr X also complains about the Council's complaint handling. The Council accepted there were delays in responding to his complaint and failures in communication, and it apologised. In any event It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman