Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision he was liable to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy, a year after it decided he was exempt from paying. We cannot investigate this complaint.
Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, and it was reasonable for him to use that right. In any event, we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council agreed he was exempt from having to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy, but then decided a year later he needed to pay. Mr X says he sent a commencement notice but the Council has no record of this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister.
5. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
7. I considered information the Council provided.
8. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. In 2018, the Council agreed Mr X was exempt from having to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It sent him its decision and told him before starting building work, he needed to send it a commencement notice. It told him failure to do so would mean he would need to pay the CIL.
10. Mr X began his development. He says he sent the commencement notice to the Council, but it has no record of receiving it.
11. In 2019, Mr X’s agent notified the Council the development was complete. The Council wrote to Mr X saying he needed to pay the CIL as it had deemed his development had commenced. It attached information about Mr X’s right to appeal to the Planning Inspector within 28 days.
12. After the 28 day period had lapsed, Mr X contacted the Council to dispute the decision he needed to pay. The Council told him it had received no commencement notice. Mr X asked the Council how he could appeal. The Council told Mr X he had no right of appeal. The time period for lodging an appeal had lapsed. Mr X told the Council he had sent the commencement notice, so his exemption should still have applied. Mr X used the Council’s complaints process then complained to the Ombudsman.
13. The Council provided Mr X information about the appeals process. Mr X had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector within 28 days, but he did not use that right. There are several grounds on which a person can appeal a CIL to the Planning Inspector. This information is readily available on the internet, and one of these grounds is “the claimed breach which led to the imposition of the surcharge did not occur”. This was the appropriate ground on which Mr X could have appealed. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal and therefore we cannot investigate his complaint.
14. Were we to investigate, we could not say what happened to the commencement notice Mr X sent to the Council. It also sent Mr X the necessary information when it sent notices. Therefore, in any event, we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. He did not appeal, but it would have been reasonable for him to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman