Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s community infrastructure levy calculation. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Office Agency, as it was better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's refusal to reconsider or correct a community infrastructure levy (CIL) calculation once an administrative error was identified.
2. Mr X complains the Council refused to consider his complaint under its complaints procedure because a statutory appeal process existed.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council’s complaint response explains why it thinks the development is liable for the CIL.
8. We are not an alternative route to remedy any matter that could have been determined at appeal. The restriction detailed in paragraph three above applies to Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman. This is because anyone disputing liability for, or the calculation of, the CIL, had a right of appeal to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).
9. The VOA has expertise in dealing with such disputes, so was better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the issues raised in Mr X’s complaint. We will therefore not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint, as it is reasonable to expect him to have used this right of appeal to resolve the issues complained of.
10. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not looking at the substantive matters. Any separable injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our further involvement. So, we will not investigate this matter as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal against the Council’s calculation of the CIL. It is reasonable to have expected Mr X to have used these appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman