Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that he is liable to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council is wrong to say he is liable to pay a CIL payment in relation to his building development. He disputes the Council’s view that a building relevant to the payment was not in “active use” for the relevant period and says he has provided evidence to show it was.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X’s representative the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X disputes the Council’s decision that a CIL is payable for his development because a particular building was not in “active use” for the relevant period.
8. Mr X submitted evidence which he believes supports his case that the building was in “active use” and so he should not be liable to pay the CIL. The Council went through the evidence supplied by Mr X and detailed why in each instance the evidence did not prove the building had been in “active use”.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and question the professional judgement of officers. We cannot question decisions made by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Here, while there is clearly a difference of views, the Council has considered the evidence supplied by Mr X and come to a decision.
10. If Mr X has additional information to support his case which the Council has not seen, he can pass it to the Council for assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman