Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the requirement for him to pay a community infrastructure levy. It is reasonable to expect him to have used his right to appeal to the Valuation Office Agency. Also, we have not seen evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice in the way the Council dealt with his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council charged him a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on a house being used solely as a private residence.
2. He also complains the Council
• provided incorrect information
• sent incorrect figures and adjustments multiple time; and
• the officer complained about responded to the stage one complaint

Mr X wants a refund of the CIL payment he made and compensation for the time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A CIL is a planning charge that allows local authorities to deliver infrastructure to support and develop the area. Most development which creates net added floorspace of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home, will be liable to pay CIL. However, some development will be exempt or eligible for relief.
7. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) deals with appeals against CIL charges. This includes appeals about exemptions for self-build properties and the Council’s calculation of the chargeable amount.
8. The Council confirms it issued a liability notice to Mr X in September 2022. After Mr X enquired about self-build relief, the Council issued a new liability notice in October 2022.
9. In June 2023, Mr X notified the Council of a start date for the work. The Council issued a demand notice for £0.00. This was an error as it did not reflect the liability notice issued in October 2022. The following day it issued a new demand notice for the correct amount.
10. The Council did issue a demand notice for the wrong amount - £0.00. However, this was corrected the following day.
11. The liability notice issued to Mr X in 2022 detailed his right to appeal, and I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used this right of appeal. Also, neither of the demand notices issued in June 2023 affected the liability Notice issued in October 2022. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice because of the issuing of the incorrect demand notice.
12. Mr X also complains the officer who was involved in the complaint, is the person who authored the Council’s stage one complaint response.
13. The Council’s complaint procedure states a complaint should be made to a member of staff or manager responsible for the relevant service. If the complainant is not satisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage two and a senior officer not previously involved will review the matter. That is what happened in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed to the VOA in 2022 when he received the CIL liability notice. And we have not seen evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice in the way the Council dealt with his complaint to investigate this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman