The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Community Infrastructure Levy process. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council administered the process.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says he was unaware his development was liable for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and he did not receive the associated Liability Notice. Mr X says this meant he was denied the opportunity to apply for a self-build exemption.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Ombudsman will not pursue Mr X’s concerns further, as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has handled the CIL process. In reaching this view, I am mindful that: There is no obligation on Councils to advise/warn an applicant that a development is liable for the CIL. The onus is on the applicant to make themselves aware of the issues that might be relevant to a development, and I note information about the CIL is available on the Council’s website. I also note Mr X had an agent who submitted the planning application on his behalf.
The Council says it posted the Liability Notice to Mr X using the details submitted with his planning application. Whilst I note the subsequent section 106 agreement contained details of another owner, I do not consider it unreasonable for the Council to have instead relied on the ownership details declared on the Ownership Certificate which accompanied the application. The Council also says it emailed a copy of the Notice using the email address Mr X used during correspondence with the case officer on the planning application.
Case law has determined the term ‘as soon as practicable’ should be interpreted as meaning weeks or months. The Council issued the Liability Notice within 13 weeks of granting planning permission, so appears to have acted in accordance with this ruling.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit the CIL commencement notice and ensure it has been received by the Council. It is not for the Building Control department to inform the Planning department when a development has commenced.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman