Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly charged a developer a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the Council’s decision that he was liable for a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment for a new house his company built. Mr B also complained the Council wrongly imposed surcharges on the CIL.

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. In particular we normally cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The law also says we normally cannot investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal or a government minister about the same matter. 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)(a)&(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and documents from the Council. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. The CIL is a planning charge, introduced by the Planning Act 2008, which councils may choose to use to help deliver infrastructure to support development in their area.
6. In 2017 Mr B successfully appealed to the Planning Inspectorate about the Council’s earlier refusal of his planning application for a new property. The Council then sent him a CIL demand.
7. Mr B said he wrote to the Council objecting to its CIL demand and a later liability notice. He argued the planning consent in his case pre-dated the Council’s introduction of the CIL. Mr B also said he told the Council the date works would start. But he did not receive any responses to his letters.
8. Early in 2018 the Council imposed a surcharge on Mr B for not letting it know that works had begun. It sent a further surcharge demand in 2019. Mr B wrote to the Council again at that point but it refused to change its decision. Around 2021 the Council obtained a charging order on the property because of the unpaid CIL.
9. In 2023 Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council declined to consider the complaint as it was about old events but anyway confirmed its CIL decision was correct.
10. Therefore it is clear Mr B has known about the CIL issue since 2017. However he only brought this matter to us in 2023. It is also clear Mr B was aware of the Council’s surcharges in 2018 and 2019 without complaining to us then. So his complaint to us is late.
11. I am also not convinced we have grounds to exercise our discretion and investigate Mr B’s complaint now despite it being late. In particular I see no reason he could not have complained to us much nearer the time of the events in question. I also doubt we could carry out a worthwhile investigation now about what happened up to six years ago.
12. A further reason we should not investigate Mr B’s complaints about his liability for a CIL charge and the Council’s surcharges is that he could have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Office Agency and to the Planning Inspectorate in these respects.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council wrongly charged a Community Infrastructure Levy in his case because he complained late about this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman