Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Community Infrastructure Levy and its complaint handling. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the matter was reviewed and any injustice caused by earlier fault is not significant. Nor could we add to any previous investigation by the organisation as it has apologised and taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council misapplied the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to a planning application, and issued a liability notice in error. He also stated it contacted his mortgage lender before informing him and delayed their response during the complaints process. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused him reputational harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The CIL is a charge that Council’s set on relevant new developments in their area. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider a decision it notified him about, that he was liable for this charge. After a review the Council accepted it initially misinterpreted the CIL regulations and confirmed he had no liability. Given the timescales involved, it is unlikely we would find any fault in the time it took for the Council to review its decision.
6. I have considered whether the initial misinterpretation caused a significant injustice to Mr X. The issue was resolved within a very short period of time, and no liability decision was enforced. The Council also explained why it contacted Mr X’s mortgage lender. Noting the Council has apologised for its earlier fault, there is no significant injustice remaining to justify an investigation.
7. Noting the Council’s responses at all stages, that it accepted fault, apologised and has taken steps to prevent a recurrence, we will not investigate, because we could not add to this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, any injustice remaining is not significant and we could not add to the action already taken by the organisation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman