Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated a Community Infrastructure Levy liability. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council accepted it wrongly charged her for a Community Infrastructure levy (CIL) payment and later agreed to reduce the charge to zero. She complains it refuses to refund her for the added costs she incurred or pay compensation for the time and trouble spent in requesting a review of the liability decision and pursuing the matter.
2. Ms X also complains the Council delayed in responding to her subject access request.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Community Infrastructure levy

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 more floor space of 100 square metres or more is likely to be liable for a charge.
8. Some developments may be eligible for relief or exemptions from the levy. Exemptions include developments built by ‘self-builders’.
9. 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.

CIL rights of appeal are subject to time limits.

10. The CIL Regulations state:

“(10) Where a collecting authority does not have sufficient information, or

information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish—

1. whether part of a building falls within a description in the definitions of KR and E in paragraph (7); or
   (b) the gross internal area of any part of a building falling within such a description, it may deem the gross internal area of the part in question to be zero.”

11. The Council confirms the previous owner of the site did not provide enough information, so it issued a Liability Notice in 2024.
12. It received the relevant information as part of Ms X’s request for review of liability.
13. The Council also confirms a site visit, or images only provide a snapshot of a single point in time. They are not enough to judge whether the site has been occupied for a continuous six months.
14. I understand that Ms X wants the Council to refund her for the added costs she incurred when seeking a review of the CIL charge and compensation for time and trouble. However, CIL Liability runs with the land. The onus is on the buyer of the site/property to make themselves aware of possible CIL liability and ensure the Council has all relevant information to make its decision on liability.
    
    
     

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council calculated the original CIL payment due. On receipt of the relevant information, it recalculated the charge to zero. We cannot require the Council to refund Ms X or pay any compensation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman