Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his liability for a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on his new property. Mr X has used his appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the liability issue, which takes it outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the terms of the CIL payment plan he has with the Council. The current agreement terms do not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice which warrants us investigating, and it is reasonable for him to ask the Council to review the terms.

The complaint

1. Mr X is self-building a house, for his main residence. He complains the Council:
1. is unfairly demanding over £20,000 from him under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL);
2. has required him to agree a payment plan for the CIL money on unfair terms.
2. Mr X says he should not be liable for the CIL because he should have a self‑build exemption. He appealed against the Council’s CIL Demand Notice to the Planning Inspectorate, which dismissed the appeal. Mr X says he has been caused financial loss of over £20,000, which he cannot afford. He says the terms of the CIL payment plan mean he has to pay £100 a month for about two years, but then requires him to pay the full remaining balance at the end of that instalment period. Mr X says the matter has caused him extreme distress. He wants the Council to show leniency, quash the CIL Demand Notice, and return the CIL monies he has already paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Inspectorate considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission;
• a decision to refuse planning permission;
• conditions placed on planning permission;
• a planning enforcement notice;
• a decision to serve a CIL Demand Notice.

5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There are two core issues in Mr X’s complaint:
• his liability to pay the CIL on his new property; and
• the terms of the CIL payment plan he has entered into with the Council.
8. We cannot investigate the core CIL liability issue. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to dispute the Council’s CIL Demand Notice and his liability to pay it. We cannot investigate a complaint where someone has appealed the matter complained of to the Inspectorate as the appeal takes it outside our jurisdiction.
9. The terms of the CIL payment plan are within our jurisdiction because this was a process of the Council which was separate from the Inspectorate appeal. However, we will not investigate this part of the complaint because the terms of the Council payment plan Mr X has entered into provide him with a benefit, rather than cause him an injustice. I say this because once a CIL is incurred, it becomes payable immediately. There is no obligation on a planning authority to agree any plan which postpones payment of all or part of a CIL. The Council’s agreement to take small sums from Mr X over a two-year period, deferring most of the total, is to his advantage. The terms of the payment plan do not cause Mr X a personal injustice which justifies us investigating.
10. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council to review and renegotiate the terms of the payment plan now, during the instalment period, or when the final sum becomes due. If they cannot agree different terms, and Mr X considers them to be unfair, he has the option to withdraw from the agreement. It would then be a matter for the Council to decide how it may recover any remaining CIL.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his liability to pay a CIL because his appeal to the Planning Inspectorate takes that issue outside our jurisdiction
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the terms of the CIL payment plan he has made with the Council because:
• the plan’s terms do not cause a significant personal injustice to him which warrants us investigating;
• it is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council to review and renegotiate the terms of the payment plan.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman