The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to his allotment plots. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to his allotment plots. He said the Council: unfairly terminated his lease for his allotment plots.
cleared his allotment plots and then unreasonably charged him with the cost of it.
Mr X said this caused him significant anxiety and distress. He wants the Council to cancel the bill.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke with Mr X and considered the information Mr X provided.
I considered the information the Council provided.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council’s allotments policy The Council’s allotments policy sets out several rules which plot holders must adhere to. It states plot holders must not: keep an allotment plot untidy and overgrown.
bring waste onto the allotment site and burn any waste brought in.
store motor vehicles, trailers or caravans on the allotment site.
store tyres from vehicles on the allotment site.
From 2013, the Council implemented restrictions in its policy in relation to keeping animals on the allotment site. Plot holders could keep their current animals on site until they had been removed or died. Plot holders could not replace the animals or breed them. Plot holders were strictly forbidden from keeping cockerels on the allotment site.
The policy also stated: the Council may terminate a plot holder’s lease if it deemed the plot holder had not adhered to the rules set out in its policy.
when a plot holder left a plot, they must leave the plot in good condition. If the plot was not left in an acceptable condition, the Council would clear the plot and charge the departing plot holder with the cost of clearing it.
What happened Mr X had two allotment plots which he had leased from the Council for several years. Mr X had kept four goats on site.
In 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X on a number of occasions in relation to the condition of his allotment plots. It said it had found Mr X had been storing wood and a trailer on site which made his allotment plots look untidy. The Council asked Mr X to remove these items. In addition, the Council noted Mr X had been breeding his goats. It told Mr X to stop this and remove the additional goats.
In 2020, the Council inspected Mr X’s allotment plots at various times throughout the year and found Mr X had not removed the wood from his allotment plots. Mr X was also storing other building material and waste on site such as door and window frames. The Council said his allotment plots were overgrown and untidy. It also discovered Mr X had been bringing in waste from outside and burning it on site.
The Council wrote to Mr X on several occasions. It told Mr X to remove the unauthorised items and tidy up his allotment plots. It also told him to stop burning waste on site. In November 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X and asked him to tidy up his allotment plots by the next inspection date which was planned for February 2021. It warned Mr X that failure to make improvements to his allotment plots would result in the Council terminating his lease.
Between January 2021 and June 2021, the Council continued to monitor Mr X’s allotment plots. The Council found Mr X had continued to use them as storage space and had not removed the wood. He was also storing other unauthorised items such as a sofa, a bathtub, wooden sculptures, vehicle tyres and metal machinery. The Council found Mr X had burned waste on site again. In addition, the Council noted Mr X was not taking care of his animals and it had found a cockerel on his allotment plots.
The Council wrote to Mr X on six occasions during this period. It told Mr X to remove the unauthorised items and tidy up his allotment plots. It told Mr X to take care of his animals and to remove the cockerel. The Council reminded Mr X of its policy in relation to burning waste on site and told him not to burn any more waste. The Council again warned Mr X it would start the eviction process if Mr X did not make any improvements.
In July 2021, the Council informed Mr X it had recently inspected his allotment plots and found Mr X had made no changes in response to the Council’s advice. It therefore told Mr X it had made the decision to terminate his lease of both allotment plots. The Council asked Mr X to remove his personal belongings from both sites and all waste by 18 July 2021. It told Mr X if he did not do this, it would clear the sites and charge Mr X with the cost of the work.
During this time, Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X said the Council had victimised him. He said other plot holders had stored similar items and the Council had not told them to remove them. Mr X said the Council had harassed him by sending him continuous letters. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision to terminate his lease. He said the Council had not treated him fairly. In addition, Mr X said he was acutely unwell and in hospital between June 2020 and August 2020 and the Council had been inconsiderate of this as it had continued to write to him about his allotment plots.
The Council responded to Mr X. It said it had written to Mr X to encourage him to clear his allotment plots to an acceptable standard. It said it had given Mr X many opportunities to sort out his allotment plots before the Council took formal action. It said if a plot holder neglected their plot and failed to respond to formal requests to make improvements, they were at risk of the Council terminating their lease. The Council was aware Mr X was in hospital in 2020 and recognised during that time Mr X would not have been able to take care of his allotment plots. However, the Council said a year later, Mr X’s allotment plots were still not brought up to an acceptable standard. The Council said as Mr X had continued to breach the rules set out in its policy, it had reached the decision to terminate his lease. The Council was satisfied it had taken reasonable action.
Following the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council extended its notice period for Mr X to clear his allotment plots by 3 August 2021. However, Mr X did not clear the plots. The Council therefore wrote to Mr X and informed him it would clear them instead and charge Mr X with the cost of it. Later, the Council sent Mr X an invoice for the amount of £2,640.
Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.
Findings
Mr X said the Council’s decision to terminate his lease was unfair. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot question a Council’s decision if there was no fault in the way it was reached. The evidence shows the Council considered the several rules set out in its policy Mr X had not adhered to over an extended period of time. During this period, it closely and regularly monitored Mr X’s allotment plots. The Council wrote to Mr X, addressed the issues and requested him to make improvements. It gave him adequate opportunities to do so and warned him failure to make improvements would result in the Council terminating his lease. It appropriately made its decision in line with its policy. The Council was not at fault.
Mr X said the Council’s decision to charge him for clearing his allotment plots was unreasonable. The Council’s decision to charge Mr X was in line with its policy. It also gave Mr X adequate notice to clear his allotment plots. The Council was not at fault.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman