Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council imposing a Community Infrastructure Levy surcharge on the complainant, and that a council officer advised the complainant to act unethically. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in relation to the surcharge, and the complainant has not suffered an injustice as a result of the alleged comments by the officer.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council should not have imposed a surcharge for the late submission of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) commencement notice, as she had not received any of the previous documents/notices about the matter. Miss X also says when she sought advice from the Council about the notice, an officer advised her to enter the incorrect date to avoid the surcharge.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken in response to the complaint

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)& (7))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and copies of the correspondence/planning documents sent to Miss X’s planning agent.
4. I also considered out Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s planning portal.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Whilst I am very sympathetic to Miss X’s situation, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against the Council’s decision that she should remain liable for the surcharge. We can only consider whether there was procedural or administrative fault in the way the Council handled the matter.
6. The planning application form submitted to the Council for Miss X’s development said her agent was acting on her behalf. It was therefore appropriate for the Council to send the decision notice and subsequent CIL documents to the agent. The Council’s emails to the agent said the correspondence was being sent on behalf of his clients and explained what needed to be done with the forms. I do not see the Council is at fault for this information not then being forwarded on to Miss X by her agent. I therefore do not consider the Ombudsman should pursue this part of the complaint further.
7. Miss X also says when she became aware of the outstanding CIL, she contacted the Council for advice. She says an officer told her to put the incorrect date on the commencement notice so that she could avoid the surcharge for failing to submit it on time. The Council says the officer in question did not mean to suggest that Miss X should act unethically, and was instead trying to explain how the CIL process works. It says the officer has been reminded to be very careful in how he explains the process to people in the future.
8. Miss X did not act on the advice she says the officer gave, so I do not see she has been caused an injustice by the alleged fault. The Council has also taken action to prevent any such confusion arising in the future. For these reasons, the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in relation to the surcharge, and she has not suffered an injustice as a result of the comments allegedly made by a council officer.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman