Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about his allotment. Some matters have been to Court which means we cannot investigate. And there is either not enough significant injustice to investigate the others or we could not achieve anything meaningful.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about matters relating to his allotment tenancy. Specifically:
• he was wrongly served with a Notice to Quit his allotment plot;
• once the Notice was overturned, he was prevented from accessing his shed; and
• his plants, shrubs and trees were removed in his absence.
2. Mr X also complains about how the Council handled his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
4. 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 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has an allotment on Plot 2. The organisation which runs the allotments on behalf of the Council issued him with a Notice to Quit which Mr X successfully challenged in Court.
8. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Notice to Quit. This is because he sought a remedy in Court.
9. Once Mr X had returned to his plot, he could not get access to his shed. The Council investigated and found the organisation to be at fault.
10. The organisation responded and said the shed belonged to a neighbouring allotment, Plot 1 and was not Mr X’s. It said it had told Mr X it was planning to cordon off Plot 1 and said he had 28 days to remove his equipment. It said it would help him to do so.
11. The organisation informed the Council Mr X would not accept their instructions and would only do so if the Council instructed him. The organisation said it would allow Mr X access if he gave them a date for emptying the shed.
12. It is for the organisation to manage the day to day running of the site. It is not for the Council to become involved and to issue instructions on such matters.
13. The two parties have differing views on what happened in relation to the shed. Further investigation by us could not come to a robust decision, even on the balance of probabilities, over what happened. Therefore, any investigation would achieve nothing meaningful. If Mr X wants to remove his equipment, it is open to him to contact the organisation to find a mutually convenient date to do so.
14. Mr X also complained that several trees, shrubs and plants had gone missing.
15. Mr X stated that when he returned to his allotment his plants had been destroyed or were missing. Deliberate destruction of property is a criminal matter and is for the Police. Or, if they plants died due to Mr X being unable to care for them, we will not investigate because the level of injustice is not significant enough.
16. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council handled his complaint. Where we are not investigating the substantive matters we will generally not investigate complaint handling because any injustice is not significant enough. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints. Some have been the subject of court action and so we cannot investigate. And there is either not enough significant injustice or we could not achieve anything meaningful in relation to the others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman