Summary: Mr X complained about the Community Infrastructure Levy the Council charged his client. We found fault by the Council due to delay in issuing a Liability Notice which caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty to Mr X’s client. We consider an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Community Infrastructure Levy the Council has charged his client. Mr X says the Council did not include indexation in its charging schedule and took over a year to send his client an invoice. Mr X says this meant his client was not able to appeal the charge and has caused avoidable frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X 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

Background

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

7. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a surcharge that councils can impose on new development in their areas. The surcharge only applies if the Council has a CIL policy, with details and rates on how the charge will be applied. Most new development that creates additional floor space of 100 square metres or more is likely to be liable for a charge.
8. It is possible to appeal against CIL charges, if:

• The claimed breach which led to the charge did not happen;
• The Council did not serve the CIL liability notice in relation to the development; and
• The charge has been calculated incorrectly.

9. CIL rights of appeal are subject to time limits.

Local Government Reorganisation

10. Following the April 2023 Local Government Reorganisation in North Yorkshire a single tier of local government was established and North Yorkshire Council became the successor to the seven District Councils including Selby District Council. Although the events in this complaint took place after the reorganisation, some of the policies referred to in my statement are from the predecessor council, Selby District Council. I set this out where applicable below.

What happened

11. The Council says a CIL information pack was provided to all applicants and/or their agents at the point a planning application was acknowledged. This set out that CIL was adopted from 1 January 2016 and provided a link to the Council’s Charging Schedule on its website. This document is the 2016 Selby District Council Charging Schedule. The information pack also advised that further guidance was available on the website and planning portal.
12. The above information pack set out that on granting planning permission or on receipt of a notice of chargeable development, the Council would issue a CIL Liability Notice setting out the CIL charge due. The Council would issue a Demand Notice when it received a CIL – Form 6: Commencement Notice.
13. The 2016 CIL Charging Schedule also sets out that when planning permission is granted the Council will issue a Liability Notice setting out the amount of levy that will be due for payment. On commencement of development payments must be made in full or in line with the Council’s instalment policy.
14. Mr X’s client obtained planning permission in August 2023 to build a new property. The Council has accepted in its complaint correspondence with Mr X that no action was taken at the time to establish the CIL liable party due, in part, to staffing issues. This meant the Council did not issue a Liability Notice at the time to Mr X’s client.
15. Mr X sent the required notice to the Council of his client’s intention to start work on 11 January 2024 (CIL – Form 6: Commencement Notice). This gave a commencement date of 1 March 2024.

16. Mr X says his client started work on demolishing the existing building in April 2024 as he could not continue to wait for the notice from the Council setting out his liability for CIL. By commencing work on the development, Mr X’s client was not able to appeal his CIL liability.
17. The Council issued a Demand Notice to Mr X’s client on 26 February 2025 for £7,229.09 with a due date of 26 March 2025. I have not seen an associated Liability Notice.
18. A second Demand Notice was issued to Mr X’s client on 19 March 2025 for £4,776.36 with a due date of 30 April 2024 (this was a typographical error and should read 2025). The Council also sent a Liability Notice dated the same day setting out how the CIL liability had been calculated including the formula used to index link the amount with reference to the price index published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS). This Notice set out the right to ask for a review of the calculation and information about appeals to the Valuation Office Agency. The difference in the two amounts was due to a recalculation following new information from Mr X about the internal layout of the building which reduced the CIL liability.
19. The Council emailed Mr X’s client on 30 April 2025 to extend the payment deadline until 16 May 2025. Mr X’s client paid the amount due of £4,776.36 within this extended timescale.
20. Mr X complained to the Council on 2 May 2025 about the CIL it had charged his client. Mr X raised issues of delay and the inclusion of indexation. Mr X noted the relevant forms had been sent to the Council in January 2024 ahead of his client demolishing the existing building in April 2024 and starting the new build in August/September 2024. However, his client did not receive a CIL invoice until February 2025. The CIL charged included indexation which had not been mentioned in the Council’s Charging Schedule. Due to the delay in receiving the invoice his client had started work on the development and so was unable to use his right of appeal. Mr X also questioned the legality of the charge.
21. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint on 22 May 2025. The Council also passed the element of Mr X’s complaint about the legality of the CIL to its legal team for a separate response.
22. The Council’s legal team emailed Mr X on 4 June 2025 to provide a response to his query about the legality of the CIL as the Charging Schedule still referred to Selby District Council. The Council acknowledged the CIL documentation on the Council’s website referred to Selby District Council as it was drafted prior to the 2023 Local Government Reorganisation but this did not affect the ability of North Yorkshire Council to collect CIL. This was because North Yorkshire Council, as successor to Selby District Council, had assumed the function of the former District Council to collect CIL.
23. The Council provided a response to Mr X at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure on 17 June 2025. This set out the following:

• CIL Charging Schedule for Selby District Council was created in 2016
• at that time there was no requirement to include indexation
• in 2019 the CIL Regulations changed and required indexation to be included
• Selby District Council added an additional document ‘BCIS rates and guidance’ to its website (link provided)
• Schedule 1 paragraph 40 of 2010 CIL Regulation set out how to calculate the chargeable amount including indexation
• indexation was set out in the CIL liability notice sent to Mr X’s client on 19 March 2025
• the application had been granted on 24 August 2023 but no action was taken to establish the liable party due in part to staffing issues in Selby District Council’s CIL team
• the Council advised Mr X’s client on 5 May 2025 of the reason for the delay in raising an invoice and offered a payment deadline extension which was accepted and payment had now been made
• it had been standard practice to issue a CIL pack when a planning application was acknowledged so both agent and applicant would have been aware of CIL
• provided a link to information about CIL appeals
• noted the legal issue raised by Mr X had been passed to its legal team for a separate response

24. Mr X sought to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure on 18 June 2025. Mr X was unhappy the Stage 1 sought to justify the Council’s actions with no apology or remedial action. Mr X stated the Charging Schedule should have been updated in 2019 when indexation was introduced. Mr X also explained the contact with his client in May 2025 did not help as he had already started the work by that time and so had no alternative but to pay the charge as he had lost the opportunity to appeal. Mr X reiterated his concerns about both delay and indexation and his view that the Council could not collect CIL under the old Selby Council policy.
25. The Council provided a final response to Mr X on 18 July 2025. The Council provided an apology for the upset Mr X had experienced but did not consider a further review at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure would result in a different outcome. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman. The covering email to Mr X apologised for the time taken to provide an update and that it fell short of the expected standard.
26. Mr X emailed the Council on 22 July 2025 about the CIL delay. The Council responded on 30 July 2025 to say it had explained the reason for the CIL delay in its Stage 1 response. As a result of that delay the Council had offered an extension to the payment deadline which had been accepted by his client. The Council reiterated the standard practice of issuing a CIL pack when acknowledging a planning applicant so both agent and applicant would have been aware of CIL.
27. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council confirmed the CIL Charging Schedule was created in 2016 at the time of adopting CIL in Selby. As advised in the Regulations any amendments to the CIL Charging Schedule must go through public consultation and be submitted to an independent examiner before being adopted by the Council. In this instance the information on indexation would not be added to the CIL charging schedule as indexation is automatic as set out in the 2019 Amendment referred to above. The Council confirmed there are no plans to change the CIL Charging Schedule at this time but that a review of how CIL is charged in North Yorkshire will be undertaken as part of the process of creating a new Local Plan.
28. The Council also confirmed the indexation information document was uploaded to its website in March 2023. This timing aligns with the transition from Selby District Council to North Yorkshire Council during the reorganisation when all content was being migrated across.
29. The Council has explained that there were significant periods in 2023 and 2024 where there was no acting CIL officer in the Selby area. The Council has confirmed that it successfully recruited into the vacant post in October 2024 and began processing the backlog of CIL applications.

Analysis

30. The Council has provided details of the CIL information pack provided to all applicants and agents at the point a planning application is acknowledged. This is an overview guide to CIL and directs applicants to view the full information on the Council’s website which does include information on indexation.
31. I am satisfied Mr X’s client was provided with sufficient information about his general liability for CIL when he applied for planning permission. I note Mr X has accepted in his complaint correspondence that his client was aware of the requirement to pay CIL but not that it would be subject to indexation. However, specific information relating to indexation is available on the Council’s website and I consider it would have been reasonable for the applicant and/or Mr X acting as his agent to have been aware of this.
32. In the circumstances, there are no grounds for me to recommend the Council waive the CIL levy or the indexation element Mr X’s client has paid.
33. However, there was a significant delay between Mr X returning the Commencement Notice in January 2024 and the Council issuing the Liability Notice and Demand Notice to his client in March 2025. I have considered the reasons provided by the Council for this delay but it is nevertheless an unacceptable delay and fault. Mr X’s client will have been caused a degree of uncertainty and frustration as a result.
34. Mr X also says his client was denied his right of appeal as he had little choice but to start the development before he received the Liability Notice. The only ground of appeal that may have been relevant to this complaint is that the CIL liability had been incorrectly calculated. I note the CIL liability was reduced following additional information from Mr X. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Liability Notice issued in March 2025 was incorrect. On balance, I do not consider any delay has caused Mr X’s client an additional injustice to the frustration and uncertainty already identified above.
35. Mr X complained to the Council on 2 May 2025 but did not receive a reply until 17 June 2025 which is outside the 15 working days (20 for complex cases or other reasons) provided in the Council’s published complaints procedure. The Council has advised that the delay in responding to Mr X’s Stage 1 complaint was due to an administrative error in its Customer Services team where the complaint was not passed to the Complaints team in a timely manner. There was also a delay in the Council advising Mr X it would not escalate his complaint to Stage 2.
36. The Ombudsman cannot decide the legality of the CIL charged to Mr X’s client. This would ultimately be a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Action

37. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Mr X to apologise for the delay in issuing a CIL Liability Notice to his client and the delays in the handling of his subsequent complaint; and
2. make a symbolic payment to Mr X’s client of £200 to acknowledge his avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
38. We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because of delay in its complaint handling. In order to prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints.
39. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman