Summary: Mr Z complained the Council failed to follow its own policies and failed to deal with anti-social behaviour by another allotment tenant. While the Council has now taken action, it has not been able to evidence that it considered terminating a tenancy after a serious incident at the site or that it properly informed Mr Z about the community trigger process.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains the Council failed to follow its own polices and failed to deal with anti-social by another allotment tenant.
2. Mr Z says he has been unable to use his own allotment due to the behaviour of the other tenant

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules, regulations and background information

6. Mr X is a tenant of an allotment site within the Council area. This allotment site is managed and maintained by Lampton Greenspace as part of the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces service. Ultimately, the Council is responsible for the actions of Lampton Greenspace in managing the site on its behalf.
7. The Council says where a breach of allotment rules is suspected, Lampton Greenspace Allotments Manager will investigate as deemed suitable by them. The Council says Lampton Greenspace has no set process for investigating issues raised with it about allotments.

Allotment Rules

8. Within the Council’s allotment rules it details that no tenant of allotments may alter the water supplies. Any tenant found to be making modifications to the existing supply will be served with a notice of non-compliance and may be served a termination notice.
9. The allotment rules detail that any incidents about personal safety should be reported to the police and the council or its managing agent.
10. The allotment rules detail that tenants must not cause any undue annoyance or disturbance to other tenants of the allotment. Antisocial behaviour towards other tenants will not be tolerated and acts of anti-social behaviour may result in the termination of a tenancy. The rules state that plot holders who cause a nuisance may have their lease terminated without notice.
11. Where there are disputes between tenants these should be referred to the Council or its managing agent.

Anti-social behaviour

12. Councils have a duty to act to combat anti-social behaviour. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives councils powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.
13. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as:
• Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
• Conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
14. The Council’s website advises people to report anti-social behaviour to the police to investigate.
15. The Council’s website also says you can report anti-social behaviour to it. The Council can then investigate and collect evidence, issue warning letters, seek civil injunctions, seek a criminal behaviour order, issue a community protection notice or work with the police.

Community Trigger

16. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 also provides a mechanism to review the handling of complaints about anti-social behaviour. This is known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When someone requests a review, relevant bodies (which include the council, police, and other agencies) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
17. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take further action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the anti-social behaviour statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of anti-social behaviour within six months.
18. The Council’s website states victims can use the Community Trigger if they have complained about three separate incidents of anti-social behaviour in the last six months.
19. Anti-social behaviour statutory guidance published in 2019 states the Community Trigger is an important safety net in ensuring that victim’s voices are heard, but it is important that victims can easily access information about how to apply for a formal review and in what circumstances they can do so.
20. The 2019 guidance says relevant bodies must publish the anti-social behaviour Community Trigger procedure to ensure victims are aware they can apply to activate the procedure. It says consideration should be given to where this information is published and how accessible the information is. It recommends making it clear that the procedure is about seeking a case review.
21. The government revised the anti-social behaviour statutory guidance in 2021. The updated guidance puts a clear emphasis on local authorities to ensure information about the Community Trigger is accessible and victims are aware of their right to use it.

Key facts

22. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.

Mr Z’s complaints

23. Mr Z is an allotment holder at a site managed by Lampton Greenspace on behalf of the Council. Mr Z complained about a threat of violence made by another allotment tenant in March 2023. Mr Z also reported the incident to the police. The managing agents responded saying the perpetrator had made counter allegations against Mr Z and that without witnessing the incidents it was difficult to take a view. It wrote to all parties involved to remind them of the rules and said if further allegations were substantiated then the tenancy would be terminated with immediate effect. It asked Mr Z to make it aware of any further incidents in the future.
24. Mr Z said he was aware of other allotment tenants who had experienced issues and made complaints about the same perpetrator. It said this made him fearful of using his allotment. Mr Z said that as a result of him not using his plot, no further incidents had occurred. He requested the Council deal with his concerns as a stage one formal complaint.
25. The Council responded to Mr Z’s complaint on 11 April 2024. The Council explained that it was aware of several further incidents involving the same perpetrator and that it was seeking legal advice. It said that due to data protection regulations (GDPR) it was unable to disclose what action it was taking but that it was taking appropriate action to resolve the complaints. It acknowledged its response may be frustrating but said it was unable to disclose further information at that time.
26. Mr Z escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. He said there was no mention of his contact with the police about the incident in March 2023. Mr Z said the stage one response was not acceptable and asked the Council to respond to six specific points.
27. The Council responded on 15 May. It again explained that GDPR prevented it from sharing specific details of any action it was taking. It provided a response to each of the six points raised by Mr Z. It acknowledged there had been delays by it and the managing agents in responding to some emails and complaints and it apologised. In response to Mr Z’s concern about the lack of site visits by the managing agents the Council said the agents may have been less visible due to other commitments but they had continued to undertake statutory duties. It also said it would consider the issues raised about the water at the site being turned off.

Complaints by other allotment holders

28. In August 2023, another allotment tenant, Mr X, made a complaint to the managing agents about harassment and threats from the same perpetrator. The perpetrator was the chairman of the allotment association. The incidents had been reported to the police. Mr X continued to contact the Council and make complaints about the same perpetrator. The Council investigated these concerns and in October 2023 it sought legal advice. The Council said it was taking action but that it was unable to share details.
29. Mr X made a new complaint in November 2023 stating the water had been turned off at the site by the same perpetrator. Mr X said he kept livestock at the allotment but no water was available. He complained about the Council’s inaction. The Council contacted the managing agents and sought information about the water at the site and for any other updates.
30. The managing agents investigated and found the allotment association had turned off the water without authorisation. The managing agents instructed the association to turn the water back on. The Council provided a stage two complaint response to Mr X on 20 December acknowledging the behaviour of the allotment association chairman was an ongoing concern and that it was seeking legal advice. It advised Mr X to continue to report incidents to it and the police.
31. In March 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about inaction since his previous complaint. He said the water had only been turned back on for one day since November 2023.

Further actions

32. The Council continued to liaise with the managing agents and legal advisors. In April 2024, based on the legal advice provided, it took action against the perpetrator. It again stated it was unable to disclose details of the action taken to Mr Z and Mr X.
33. The Council says that due to the increasing concerns and number of complaints received about the actions of the allotment association chairman, it formed a multi-disciplinary team to work and advise on this case.
34. Shortly after the action taken by the Council in April 2024, incidents occurred at the allotments involving the perpetrator and the police. While details cannot be disclosed, the incident was serious in nature and potentially put other allotment users at risk. The Council, in response to my enquiries, said it had already taken action against the perpetrator and so further action was not considered.
35. An allotment holders meeting was held on 18 July 2024. Mr Z attended the meeting. The Council explained the situation was complex and acknowledged the distress people had experienced. It said the Council and its managing agents had worked consistently to monitor the situation and that it was committed to resolving it. It said action had been taken but it was unable to provide details due to GDPR. It said it would no longer recognise the allotment association and that the managing agents should be the first contact to report any issues.

Analysis

36. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of a council’s decision unless we find fault in the process it took to make that decision.
37. The Council’s policy for allotments says breaches of the rules, including anti-social behaviour, may result in the termination of a plot holder’s tenancy. However, the rules have no specific guidelines for the allotment chairman.
38. I appreciate Mr Z was unhappy with the Council’s response to his initial complaint in March 2023. However, the Council did take action by writing to those involved and explained its reason for that action. I find no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr Z’s initial complaint.
39. The Council has provided evidence of action it has taken against the allotment chairman following legal advice. While we cannot share details of this action with Mr Z, which I appreciate is frustrating, the Council is not at fault for the action it decided to take in April 2024.
40. After taking that action, a further serious incident occurred and the police were involved. The allotment tenancy agreement says that any plot holders who cause a nuisance may have their lease terminated without notice. There is no evidence to suggest the Council reconsidered its actions as a result of this incident, in particular whether this clause was applicable. This was fault. While I cannot share details of the incident, it was serious in nature and required further consideration of the implications for other allotment users. However, I cannot say whether further consideration would have resulted in the Council taking the view the perpetrator’s lease should be terminated without notice.
41. Other allotment tenants, particularly Mr X, were making complaints about the allotment association chairman. There is evidence to suggest some delay by the Council and the managing agent in dealing with those complaints and reports of harassment. However, looking at the timescales in respect of when Mr Z complained to the Council, I am not persuaded those delays had a significant impact on Mr Z directly.
42. Statutory guidance is clear that it expects bodies to ensure victims are aware of the Community Trigger procedure and the circumstances in which they can apply for a review. The 2021 statutory guidance emphasises this even further. Where a person has made frequent reports of anti-social behaviour, to the point where their case meets the local Community Trigger threshold, we consider councils should ensure they are aware of their right to request a review. I consider it fault that the Council did not tell Mr X about, or signpost him to, the Community Trigger process.
43. Mr Z and other allotment tenants raised complaints about the allotment association chairman turning off the water. In response to the initial complaints, the Council took suitable steps to address this matter. The Council contacted the managing agents who in turn contacted the allotment society. By 22 November 2023, the water was turned back on at the allotment. The Council acted effectively to address this matter and I cannot find fault.
44. However, reports were made that the allotment association chairman turned the water back off the following day, 23 November 2023, and it remained this way until 5 March 2024. The Council has been unable to provide evidence the managing agents attended the site to check the situation or that it monitored the situation, this was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Z as a result of the fault identified above, the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Mr Z; and
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty experienced.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
47. The Ombudsman has investigated a complaint by another allotment holder which is similar to this complaint. As service recommendations were made as part of that investigation, I have decided not to include any here.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman