The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council unfairly revoked her allotment plot licence. There was no fault by the Council.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council unfairly revoked her allotment plot licence. She said this was because of a dispute she had with another allotment plot holder. Ms X said the Council did not properly consider her concerns about the other allotment plot holder. Ms X would like the Council to reconsider its decision or allocate her another allotment plot.
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 a council’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 a council’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 considered the information provided by Ms X.
I considered the information provided by the Council.
Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council’s terms and conditions The allotment gardens are mainly self-managed by the plot holders. There is a team of Community Gardeners who help look after the gardens. All plot holders are required to sign a ‘Ground Rules’ document each year. Some of the terms and conditions listed in this document state plot holders must: behave in a respectable manner to other plot holders and their plots not grow flowers within the plots unless edible and less than 20% of the plot assist in keeping the communal areas of the gardens maintained take part in at least two community tidy up days each year dispose of garden waste correctly in the compost bins remove and dispose of their own rubbish What happened Ms X has had an allotment plot since 2019.
In June 2021, other plot holders witnessed Ms X being verbally abusive towards another plot holder. Later that month, the Council’s Community Gardeners conducted a meeting with Ms X to address the incident and to discuss other issues relating to ground rule breaches. Ms X agreed she would avoid any contact with the plot holder in the future.
During this meeting, Ms X raised her concerns that she was being treated unfairly by other plot holders. Ms X added recently, another plot holder, Mr Y, had made false accusations on social media that she had stolen his crop.
The Community Gardeners responded to Ms X’s concerns. They said there was no evidence which indicated other plot holders had been treating Ms X unfairly. They referred to the allegations which Mr Y had made on social media and said he had taken down the post in response to their request. They said they had asked Mr Y to apologise to Ms X. The Community Gardeners explained to Ms X they did not manage the social media page as it was set up by private members of the allotment garden.
The Community Gardeners then addressed Ms X’s behaviour in the allotment gardens. They informed Ms X other plot holders had seen Ms X: leave the garden gate unlocked smoke and drink in the garden not keeping her possessions near her plot and instead they interfered with the communal area contaminate the compost bins and not using them correctly.
Ms X agreed with the Community Gardeners that if she wished to keep her plot, she would follow the ground rules and not upset other plot holders. The Community Gardeners told Ms X they had the right to remove any plot holder who deemed to break any agreement, without further notice.
Between July 2021 and August 2021, Ms X complained several times to the Council. She said the Community Gardeners had not taken proper action in relation to Mr Y’s social media post. She said during the recent meeting she had with the Community Gardeners, they said they would ask Mr Y to make a public apology to Ms X for the comment he made and Mr Y had not done this. She also said she had requested the Community Gardeners to send out an email to all plot holders explaining that Ms X had not stolen Mr Y’s crop but this had not been done. Ms X said Mr Y had committed a malicious crime by accusing her of theft. She said it made her feel distressed.
The Council responded to Ms X and said the Community Gardeners had addressed the matter with Mr Y and did ask him to take down his comments on the social media page which he had done. It said the Community Gardeners had asked Mr Y to apologise to Ms X however he had declined to do so. It said they could approach Mr Y again and ask him to apologise but it could not force him to do so. The Council added, it did not manage the social media page and so it was out of the Council’s jurisdiction to get involved. The Council said there was no evidence the Community Gardeners had agreed to send out an email to all plot holders and that this would not be appropriate for them to do as it was a personal dispute. The Council was satisfied the Community Gardeners had acted appropriately and made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue.
Ms X also complained Mr Y had stolen her plant pot. The Council investigated and concluded Mr Y had taken it by mistake, believing it had been discarded as rubbish. Mr Y stopped using it.
In September 2021, Ms X complained to the Council again. She said Mr Y had verbally abused her in the gardens and she had felt threatened by him. She wanted the Council to take action against Mr Y and remove his allotment plot licence. The Council said it received two different accounts of what happened from the two parties.
The Council responded to Ms X and said as she had a personal dispute with Mr Y, it could not deal with her complaint. It then suggested to Ms X to contact the police if she felt threatened by Mr Y. Around this time, the Council received complaints from other plot holders regarding Ms X’s behaviour.
Later that month, the Council wrote to Ms X and informed her of its decision to cancel her allotment plot licence and exclude her from the gardens with immediate effect. The Council referred to Ms X’s ongoing dispute with Mr Y and when Ms X recently verbally attacked another allotment plot holder. The Council also referred to complaints from other plot holders. It said several other plot holders had informed it they did not feel comfortable visiting the garden whilst Ms X was there. In addition, the Council said it had raised issues with Ms X previously including that she had: grown sunflowers and refused to remove them refused to remove a large bag of sawdust from the site refused to mark her own items such as tables and chairs which then led to a ban of all large items in the gardens left her personal belongings around in the gardens and then accused people of stealing them not attended community days or tidy up days since she had her plot.
The Council said it had made significant efforts to resolve issues with Ms X but it had not worked. It could not allow the situation to continue particularly as other plot holders were not attending the gardens as a result.
Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s decision. Ms X said she was a victim as Mr Y had committed crimes against her. She said the Council had not taken appropriate action against Mr Y and it had excused his behaviour. Ms X said the decision to revoke her allotment plot licence was biased towards Mr Y and unfair. She questioned why the Council had not offered her another allotment plot. Ms X asked the Council to investigate her complaint.
The Council responded to Ms X and said it had not been biased towards Mr Y. Its decision to cancel her allotment plot licence was based on a number of previous issues and not solely on the dispute Ms X had with Mr Y. The Council said it could not offer Ms X another allotment plot as it had just revoked her licence for the previous allotment plot. It said it had a long waiting list for plots in the area and it had to make sure others were given the opportunity to use the facilities. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it would not be appropriate to allocate Ms X another allotment plot at a different location due to the history of her behaviour.
Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us.
Findings
Ms X said the Council did not properly consider her concerns about Mr Y. The Council’s Community Gardeners spoke with Mr Y about the social media post and asked him to take it down. They asked Mr Y to apologise to Ms X but he refused to do so. The Council cannot force Mr Y to apologise. Ms X wanted the Community Gardeners to send an email to the other plot holders but they said it would not be appropriate to share information about a personal dispute amongst others. The Council also investigated Ms X’s concern about her missing pot. The Council properly considered Ms X’s concerns and made sufficient effort to resolve the matter. The Council was not at fault.
Ms X said the Council’s decision to revoke her allotment plot licence was not fair and it was based on the dispute she had with Mr Y. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot question a council’s decisions if there was no fault in the way they were reached. The evidence shows the Council took into account the several ‘Ground Rules’ Ms X had not adhered to and complaints other plot holders had made about Ms X. It appropriately made its decision based on the evidence it had. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
In addition, The Community Gardeners made Ms X aware in June 2021 that the Council could remove any plot holder if they believed they had not adhered to the agreement.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman