• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the amount the Council says the complainant must pay for a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained that the Council has said he must pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Mr X argues he is exempt from the charge. He also says the Council has miscalculated the amount it says is due.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. A CIL is a planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008. It allows local authorities to deliver infrastructure to support and develop the area. Most development which creates net added floor space of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home, is liable for the levy.
5. Some development may be exempt or eligible for relief from the CIL. There are strict requirements that apply in relation to the exemptions and usually a commencement notice must be served before a development starts for an exemption to apply. The person liable for CIL can appeal to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) if they disagree with the collecting authority’s calculation of the amount charged.

What happened

6. In 2017, Mr X applied for planning permission to demolish an existing building and replace it with a new single storey dwelling. Mr X employed an agent to submit the application form, along with a CIL form, on his behalf. One of the questions on the form said, ‘Do you wish to claim an exemption for a whole new home?’. Mr X’s agent answered no to this question.
7. The Council considered the planning application and granted permission subject to conditions. Work commenced on the new building in May 2017 and Mr X moved into the completed property in 2018.
8. In May 2020, the Council contacted Mr X and requested he pay £61,678.66 for the CIL. This amount was later reduced to £49,297.10. Mr X says he was unaware he owed the CIL payment. He says his agent made a mistake when they completed the CIL form and he is unhappy he has now been asked to pay a significant amount because of this error. Mr X has also complained that it took the Council three years to contact him for payment.

Assessment

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the amount the Council says Mr X must pay for the CIL. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely that an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
10. Mr X says he is not liable for the CIL charge and says the Council is unfairly charging him a large amount of money for a simple error. However, the CIL regulations are clear. CIL relief and exemptions must be applied for before commencement of the development. If no application is made, the CIL charge will be payable. In this case, no exemption claim has ever been made. I understand Mr X says he was unaware the application had not been made. But the Council did write to the site address and contact Mr X’s agent in 2017 regarding liability for CIL. The letters sent to Mr X’s agent also requested contact details for Mr X and explained that relief could only be granted before commencement of the development. I understand Mr X says he was unaware of these letters and I cannot know why Mr X was not notified about the Council’s correspondence. But it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council in this regard.
11. Mr X has complained that it has taken the Council three years to chase him for payment and says it should have known his contact details as he was paying council tax. However, the Council has said that it is normal practice for it to contact the appointed agent. The Council also only became aware that the building was completed in 2020 which is when it contacted Mr X for payment.
12. Mr X has also disputed the Council’s calculation of the CIL and says it has not included some of the floor space of the original building. If someone disagrees with the Council’s calculations, they can appeal to the VOA. I understand Mr X’s appeal has been refused as it was not made before the building works commenced. However, the right to appeal to the VOA was detailed on the liability notice served in 2017. It is not for the Ombudsman to calculate CIL charges and the Council has also explained how it calculated the CIL amount in its response to Mr X’s review request.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page