Summary: Ms F complained the Council misinformed her about her father’s Community Infrastructure Levy relief application and failed to properly communicate and apply her requested reasonable adjustments. She said as a result she experienced unnecessary distress and had financial costs. We found no fault by the Council. It reached decisions in line with the relevant regulations and had regard to her reasonable adjustments when it became aware of her request.

The complaint

1. Ms F complained, on behalf of herself and her father (Mr X), about the Council’s handling of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge for a self-build property. She said it:
• misinformed her about the evidence required for a CIL relief claim, which meant she missed the deadline to apply for exemption of the charge;
• told her, after the deadline, it would have to accept her relief claim if a HM Revenue and Customs Value Added Tax application was successful;
• failed to apply and respond to her request for reasonable adjustments for calls and face-to-face meetings, and failed to respond to much of her communication; and
• refused to put demand notices on hold and chased her for payments.
2. Ms F said, as a result, she experienced distress and uncertainty which impacted her mental health. She also had cost as she paid the demand notices as they were sent to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms F and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Community infrastructure Levy (CIL)

9. CIL is a charge which can be levied by local authorities on new development in their area. The levy is set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) No. 2) Regulations 2019 and accompanying Government Guidance which was updated in April 2024.
10. The regulations make a number of provisions for charging authorities to give relief or grant exemptions. These are either compulsory or at the discretion of the charging authority.
11. The exemptions include self-build properties. Such properties must be owned and occupied as the principal residence for a minimum of 3 years after the work is completed.
12. The is a four-step process to apply for the exemption. A failure to follow the set procedures within the required timescales will mean that the exemption will not be obtained or will be rescinded if previously obtained, and a full levy liability will apply.
13. The form ‘Community Infrastructure, Form 7: Self Build Exemption Claim Form – Part 1’ sets out the process which must be follow:
• Step 1 – Assume liability to pay CIL in relation to the development;
• Step 2 – Submit the Self Build Exemption claim form to the collecting authority;
• Step 3 - commencement notice must be received by the collecting authority prior to the commencement of the development.
• Step 4 – Part 2 of the Self Build Exemption claim form and supporting documentary evidence must be submitted to the collecting authority within 6 months of the date of the Compliance Certificate.
14. Part two of the Claim form sets out the evidence required to be eligible for the exemption. The evidence needed is proof of the date of completion, ownership, and occupation of the property as the applicant’s main residence.
15. The applicant must also provide one of the following:
• An approved claim from HM Revenue and Customs under VAT431NB: VAT re-funds for DIY housebuilders; or
• A specialist Self Build Warranty (10 years); or
• An approved Self Build Mortgage from a bank or building society.
16. The charging authority has discretion, but is not required to, to accept other forms of documentary evidence instead of these. This should be agreed in advance with the charging authority under part 1 of the application, but the charging authority may still consider utilising discretion at the Part 2 stage of the process.
17. A self-build exemption is revoked if a disqualifying event occurs during the 3-year occupancy. This includes a failure to comply with the evidence requirements on completion. In such circumstances the charging authority must give the applicant at least 28 days to submit the necessary form and evidence before taking further action.
18. If the exemption is withdrawn the person must pay the full levy.

Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty

19. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
20. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
21. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act includes disability.
22. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
23. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
24. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

25. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

26. I have set out the key events of what occurred. This is not intended to be a full summary of everything which happened.
27. Mr X obtained planning permission for a self-built property in 2019. The development started in 2020.
28. Ms F supported Mr X in applying for CIL relief in 2020. The Council approved the application, which was subject to complying with the conditions set out in paragraphs 10-15 above.
29. In 2021 Ms F had submitted the evidence required for the initial stage of the CIL exemption process. However, the warranty Mr X had received from the self-build contractor was only for two years. She asked the Council to exercise discretion to accept the warranty.
30. The Council told Ms F this could not be accepted, but she could try and get a 10-year warranty. It also explained the evidence was required within 6 months of the date of completion which had not yet occurred. It suggested she sought professional advice.
31. In 2022 the Council asked Ms F for an update for the CIL application. It was not requiring evidence at the time. Ms F told the Council the development was not yet completed due to delays, and asked the Council to confirm if the property would be exempt from the CIL charge.
32. The Council told Ms F she had provided evidence for Form 1 of the CIL exemption process, but needed to provide evidence for Form 2 of the process. It understood she had been unsuccessful in obtaining a suitable warranty. It explained a HM Revenue & Customs approved claim may be the only way forward, and suggested she contacted it for information.
33. In May 2023 Mr X’s development was completed by a building contractor. Ms F informed the Council. She also provided some evidence required, but this included the two-year warranty.
34. In November 2023 the six-month deadline for Mr X’s CIL exemption evidence expired. Ms F told the Council she did not have the evidence needed for the CIL exemption process but wanted to send other information to be considered. The Council told her it could not accept other evidence and subsequently sent a CIL enforcement letter which gave a further 28 days to submit evidence.
35. Ms F asked the Council to exercise discretion regarding the evidence they had. She also told the Council she had a neurodiverse condition and had reasonable adjustment needs regarding communication.
36. In March 2024 the Council asked Ms F for an update regarding providing the required evidence.
37. In June 2024 the Council sent Ms F a CIL demand notice addressed to Mr X, which explained the lack of required evidence meant a disqualifying event for relief purposes had occurred. The CIL demand was payable in four six monthly instalments.
38. A call took place in Summer 2024 between the Council and Ms F. She said the Officer told her:
• the HM Revenue & Customs route for the required evidence could be based on works related to the development, not only the property.
• HM Revenue & Customs were likely to refuse the VAT reclaim as it was outside the timescales, but if it was accepted the Council would have to accept this as evidence and the exemption could be applied.
39. Ms F subsequently applied to HM Revenue & Customs for the VAT reclaim. She informed the Council about this. The Council told her it could not help any further and it could not confirm whether any evidence would be accepted at that stage, even if her VAT reclaim was successful.
40. Ms F asked the Council about an appeals process. The Council explained there was no appeals process, and it had a duty to follow the CIL process.
41. In Autumn 2024 Ms F’s HM Revenue & Customs VAT reclaim on Mr X’s behalf was processed. She shared this with the Council. The Council told Ms F it could not accept this evidence as it was far in excess of the six-month timescale.

Ms F’s complaint

42. Ms F was unhappy with the Council’s handling of and decisions around the CIL exemption. She asked the Council for meetings to discuss her disagreement and felt it had not responded to all her communication. She complained to the Council. Below are the key points of Ms F’s complaint and the Council’s response:
• It misinformed her about the evidence required for a relief claim, which meant she missed the deadline to apply for exemption of the levy;

The Council did not agree it had failed to inform her about the CIL relief process. It explained it had set out the process, the process was on the CIL forms, and it had informed her about the HM Revenue and Customs VAT reclaim option in September 2022.

• It told her, after the deadline, it would have to accept her relief claim if a HM Revenue and Customs Value Added Tax application was successful. However, it then refused to consider the evidence; and

The Council found no evidence it had told Ms F it would accept her exemption if HM Revenue and Customs accepted her VAT reclaim. It also said Ms F had not provided any evidence to substantiate the alleged advice when it requested it. It explained it had told her it could not confirm if any further evidence would be considered as the deadline had passed.

• It failed to apply and respond to her request for reasonable adjustments for call and face-to-face meetings and failed to respond to much of her communication. She said this meant it had failed to adhere to its Public Sector Equality Duty and the Equality Act 2010.

The Council did not agree it had failed to communicate properly with Ms F. It explained it first became aware she had a neurodiverse condition in late 2023. However, it would not arrange a meeting as its view and decision had already been made clear. It said her requests under the Equality Act 2010 did not override the timescales for the CIL exemption process.

43. Ms F continued to dispute the Council’s response and decision around the CIL exemption. She was also unhappy the Council sent demand notices and payment reminders to her, when it was Mr X who was liable. She said she had therefore made some payments which she felt was under duress.
44. Ms F asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She said the Council had refused to put the payments for the CIL levy on hold.

Analysis and findings

45. Ms F complaint relates to events which occurred since 2020 when she initially applied for the CIL self-build relief to the Council on behalf of Mr X. Parts of the complaint is therefore late. I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider the events which occurred from 2023, but I have had regard to the events which occurred prior to this for context.

Did the Council misinform Ms F about the CIL process?

46. The evidence shows the Council shared information with Ms F about the CIL process. This included the evidence she, or Mr X, were required to provide at different stages of the self-build development to benefit from the exemption. The key points were:
• The Community Infrastructure, Form 7: Self Build Exemption Claim Form – Part 1 and Part 2, which both set out the required evidence;
• It provided reasons why the self-build contractor’s two-year warranty was insufficient and what Ms F could try to get a 10-year warranty;
• It sought updates from Ms F for the evidence and reminded her about the six- month deadline to provide evidence following completion of the development;
• It informed her about the HM Revenue & Custom VAT Reclaim option in September 2022, and suggested she contacted HM Revenue & Customs for information; and
• It recommended she sought independent legal advice.
47. I acknowledge the process was new to Ms F and Mr X. However, the Council’s role was to provide information to them. I found the information it provided was accurate and appropriate, I have seen no evidence it failed to inform Ms F about the options available to benefit from the exemption. I have therefore not found the Council at fault.

Did the Council wrongly promise Ms F it would apply the exemption?

48. I understand a call took place between Ms F and the Council in Summer 2024. It is disputed what was said in the call.
49. It is agreed Ms F was told she could apply to HM Revenue and Customs for a VAT reclaim based on works which was not directly linked to the property development. However, Ms F said the Council told her if this was successful it would have to accept her CIL exemption claim. This is disputed by the Council.
50. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the evidence only shows the Council told her it could not confirm whether any further evidence would be considered or accepted.
51. I considered whether it was fault by the Council to continue to seek updates and allow Ms F to provide evidence for the CIL exemption process in 2024 when the deadline had expired. I found it was not. It was Ms F who would not accept the Council’s decision, she asked it to exercise its discretion, and continued her attempts to obtain qualifying evidence for the exemption long after the deadline had expired. The Council consistently found it could not apply discretion in this case, which was a decision it was entitled to make.

Reasonable adjustment and communication

52. I have not found fault by the Council in how it handled Ms F’s reasonable adjustment requests and how it communicated with her. I found it had regard to its public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010. In reaching my view I was conscious:
• I have seen no evidence Ms F informed the Council about her neurodiverse condition prior to late 2023. I acknowledge Ms F said she did so in an earlier call;
• Ms F was able to send the Council extensive communication and respond to requests for the CIL exemption process;
• The Council’s role was to provide information and consider Ms F’s CIL relief application submitted on Mr X’s behalf. It was not expected to provide advice or ongoing support, and it recommended she sought independent legal advice;
• It responded and reached decisions on Ms F’s submission of evidence. It also held two calls with her, including one after the deadline to submit evidence had expired;
• I would not expect the Council to continue to discuss or arrange calls when it had shared its view and decision with Ms F. It was clear she understood the reasons for its decision, but she disagreed with the outcome.
53. If Ms F believes the Council’s handling and communication amounts to a breach of the Equality Act 2010 due to her neurodiverse condition, she can bring her concerns to a court for its determination. Only a court can reach a view whether her rights under the Equality Act 2010 has been breached.
54. In addition, I understand Ms F was unhappy with the Council’s refusal to put demand notices on hold and it chased her for payments. She also believes it was wrong to send the correspondence to her, as she therefore felt she had to make payments.
55. I have not found fault by the Council. This is because:
• the regulations make it clear the CIL levy is chargeable from when a disqualifying event occurs, and the Council allowed more time before it shared its demand notices. It was not required to put the recovery on hold during its complaints process or the Ombudsman’s investigation; and
• Ms F has since the start of the CIL process acted and supported Mr X with the application and communicated with the Council. The demand notices make it clear it is Mr X who is liable to pay the levy. Ms F should have passed the demand notices to Mr X, or asked the Council to send these directly to him, if this was a concern to her.

Back to top

Decision

56. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman