Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 730)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 04 Mar 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s development being made liable for the community infrastructure levy. 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 issues he raises.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council should not have made his development liable for the community infrastructure levy (CIL), and says he has received four different bills for it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is, or was, another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
  2. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint responses explain why it thinks the development is liable for the CIL, and why different bills have been issued.
  2. However, the restriction detailed in paragraph 2 above, appears to apply 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).
  3. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the VOA was better placed to consider the issues he is raising.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings