Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council took longer to complete a sale of land than it promised and that it decided to impose a surcharge under the Community Infrastructure Levy scheme. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took longer to complete a sale of land than it promised and that it decided to impose a surcharge under the Community Infrastructure Levy scheme. He says the Council should compensate him for his lost income caused by the delay and cancel the surcharge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint and the Council’s responses to him.
6. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Mr X agreed to buy land from a third party. The land was subject to agreed planning permission for a property development which was subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme.
8. As part of the development, Mr X also agreed to buy a strip of land from the Council to provide access to the site. The sale process started in mid-July 2019.
9. The Council’s website says land sales take around 12 weeks. Mr X says the Council told him it would try to complete the sale in 6-8 weeks. The Council says this was a minimum estimate. The Council was ready to complete the sale in late January 2020, 28 weeks after the sale process started.
10. The Council says the sale took longer than expected because of objections about the sale and other offers which meant the Council needed to consult with its elected members. Mr X says the Council was aware of these issues when it agreed to the sale and gave him the estimate. He says his offer for the land was significantly better, so it should not have taken so long to approve it. He also says it took a further 13 weeks from when the Council resolved these issues and passed the sale to its legal team to complete the sale.
11. The Council says it kept Mr X’s solicitors informed throughout the process but accepts it could have provided a better explanation of the steps involved. Mr X says he had to chase the Council’s legal team repeatedly throughout the 13 weeks and it did not provide a timeframe for completion despite his requests.
12. While waiting for the sale to complete, Mr X started some exploratory work on a different part of the site. He did this work without sending the Council a ‘commencement notice’ under the CIL rules, so the Council required Mr X to pay a surcharge under the rules. Mr X says the Council should refund the surcharge he has paid because of the delays.

Delays in sale of land

13. I appreciate Mr X’s wish for the sale to happen speedily. However, there is no legal requirement imposed on the Council to do so. The Council owned the land on behalf of the population of the area and we would expect it to properly take into account their wishes and possible objections to the sale.
14. I appreciate that, in hindsight, the Council could have concluded the sale sooner and it could have kept Mr X better informed about progress. However, I am not satisfied the delay was significant enough to be fault.

Community Infrastructure Levy surcharge

15. The law allows councils to impose a CIL surcharge when someone starts work before sending the Council a commencement notice. The rules also set out the grounds under which a CIL surcharge can be challenged through the Planning Inspector. This includes whether the Council was correct to decide that work had started. Mr X says none of these grounds applied to him, so he could not appeal the notice.
16. Mr X accepts he started work before sending the Council a commencement notice. The Council was entitled to impose a surcharge under its CIL scheme and it chose to do so.
17. I appreciate, by giving a commencement notice, Mr X would be accepting liability for the full CIL payment and he was concerned about accepting this liability before the Council’s land sale had been agreed. I also appreciate Mr X felt he was under pressure to start the work as soon as possible because of the delays with the sale.
18. However, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because someone disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
19. The Council imposed the surcharge in line with its CIL scheme. I have seen no evidence the Council considered irrelevant information or failed to consider relevant information when deciding to impose the surcharge. Therefore, I believe we would be unlikely to find fault with the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman