The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision about a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the decision to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council calculated a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) wrongly. He says that he provided evidence the calculation was completed wrongly to the Council, and it has refused to recalculate it. He says that this has caused him stress and has left him with a larger charge than he should have.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained the Council wrongly calculated a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). When he provided evidence that it had been done incorrectly, he says the Council refused to recalculate it. If Mr X felt the CIL was calculated incorrectly, it would have been reasonable to expect him to appeal to the Valuation Office for Agency (VOA). The VOA can determine whether the CIL calculation has been done correctly or not. It also has the power to require the Council to correct any errors it identifies which we are unable to do. As this alternative remedy was available, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the VOA.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman