Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council managed an allotment site and its officers’ conduct. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to report her concerns about data protection breaches to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of Ms X about discriminatory enforcement of rules on an allotment site and an officer’s conduct. Mr Y also complains on behalf of Ms X that the Council displayed her name and personal details on allotment fencing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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. Ms X rented an allotment from the Council. There was an arson attack so a shed on the allotment was being replaced. The Council warned Ms X the shed was too large and not made of suitable materials. It told her she was in breach of her tenancy notice and asked her to follow the regulations.
7. Mr Y complains on behalf of Ms X that the Council has only enforced rules against her. The Council said it was asking her to remove the structure before any further building took place to save time and money. The Council said it had spoken to her about this issue previously. It issued Ms X warnings and noticed further breaches of the regulations.
8. Ms X complained a Council officer was discriminating against her and was taking bribes from other allotment holders. The Council investigated but found no evidence of discrimination or bribery.
9. The Council has acted in line with the tenancy regulations. It has provided evidence that Ms X did not obey the regulations and so it ended her tenancy. It has investigated her complaints about discrimination and bribery. Based on the information I have seen, there is no evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council.
10. Ms X complained the Council put a notice with her name and personal details on the fence of her allotment. She says this is a breach of data protection. This is a matter which the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. And it is reasonable to expect her to report her concerns about data protection to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman