Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) self-build relief in connection with two properties she owns. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation will add to that already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says she received incorrect advice from the Council during conversations she had with officers regarding CIL self-build relief for two properties she owns. She says as a direct result of this she is liable for CIL on both properties when she should only have paid for one.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. CIL is a planning charge from which an exemption can be claimed for a self-build home.
7. Ms X obtained planning permission to build a property she intended to live in and so claimed and received a CIL self-build exemption from the Council.
8. In the meantime, Ms X then bought a second property and obtained planning permission to develop it. Her application included a request to claim self-build relief. However, the Council issued a CIL Liability Notice for it. As Ms X now intended to live in the second property, she contacted the Council to query why she had received a demand notice for CIL when she believed she had claimed an exemption. The Council withdrew the notice and advised her it would consider whether it could grant a self-build exemption for the second property.
9. As its records did not show Ms X had told the Council she would not be living at the first property, and had not given notification of any disqualification event for the self-build exemption, it told her it could not grant an exemption for the second property because it had already been granted to the first property. Ms X paid the CIL for the second property.
10. Council records show Ms X subsequently told it that the first property had been rented out to tenants. As this was not her home, the Council told her the relief would be withdrawn and she would have to repay it.
11. Unhappy at having to pay CIL at both properties, even though she was living in one of them, Ms X complained to the Council. It considered her complaint and noted the unfortunate sequence of events but advised that as she had not told it of the “disqualifying event” in renting out the first property, it had properly made her liable for CIL at the second property. It said it had to act within the law and that the CIL regulations prevented it from making changes to stop her being liable for CIL for both properties. It did not find fault with the Council’s handling of her CIL liabilities.
12. Ms X says she was misadvised by officers but it appears the first time Ms X told the CIL Team she wanted to claim a self-build exemption for the second property and this was denied because of that applied to the first property, she did not tell the Council the first property had been rented out and was no longer to be her home.
13. The Council has investigated Ms X’s complaint in some detail, setting out the timeline of events as shown by its records. It has explained it cannot act outside the CIL rules and that it acted on the information available to it at the time. This is an unfortunate situation for Ms X but I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will add to that already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman