Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to hold him liable for payment of the community infrastructure levy for development he has carried out to his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council considers him liable for payment of the community infrastructure levy (CIL) for work to renovate part of his property. He says the development itself is exempt from the CIL and the Council failed to respond to his architect’s application for an exemption. The Council issued Mr X a demand notice for more than £15,000 but has since cancelled surcharges of almost £3,000 for commencing the development without first submitting a commencement notice and ‘assumption of liability’ forms.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Although Mr X’s architect (Y) applied for an exemption from the CIL he did so before the Council had granted planning permission for the development. This meant the Council could not issue the exemption and the application was, at the time, effectively invalid.
6. The forms Y submitted were clear that any claim for an exemption would “lapse where development commences prior to the collecting authority informing me of its decision”. It was Mr X’s choice to commence work on the development without a decision on the application and by doing so he lost the ability to claim the exemption.
7. Although Mr X believes the Council has some leeway and should waive the requirement to pay the CIL the Council has explained to him it cannot do this. The legislation requires the liable person to pay the CIL where they do not have confirmation of an exemption prior to commencement of the chargeable development and we could not therefore say the Council is at fault for requiring Mr X to pay.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman