Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not exempting him from a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on a residential extension to his property, how it dealt with his case, and it not telling him about his rights of appeal. Since Mr X brought this complaint, the Council has reviewed the case and granted the CIL exemption. There is insufficient remaining injustice to him to warrant investigating. The Council advising Mr X that he had no right of appeal against its CIL decision was not fault because there is no such right in residential extension cases.

The complaint

1. Mr X has built extensions to his residential property which he says is his home. He complains the Council:
1. wrongly refused him an exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL);
2. stopped replying to him and failed to review his case;
3. told him he did not have a right of appeal against its CIL decision.
2. Mr X says the Council demanded £150,000 in CIL monies from him. He does not specify in his complaint what outcome he wants. But implicit in his complaint is that he wants the Council to review its decision that he is liable for the CIL.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online CIL information and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People who extend their homes by over 100 square metres are exempt from CIL if they follow the proper process and qualify under the exemption criteria. Mr X sought an exemption because the property to be extended was his main dwelling. The Council sought information about his application, including where he was living. Mr X explained he was currently living in a mobile home while preparing for the development. The Council considered Mr X was not exempt from the CIL as the property to be extended was not his residence at the time. Mr X disagreed. He and the Council corresponded further but did not resolve the matter.
6. However, since Mr X’s complaint to us, the Council has advised us its CIL team has confirmed that Mr X has moved back to the property and is therefore exempt from paying CIL. This means the core issues in Mr X’s complaint fall away. The Council has reviewed his case as he requested and has decided he qualifies for the CIL exemption. This decision removes the key injustice Mr X claimed, that the Council was not exempting from the CIL he believed he should not be liable to pay. There is insufficient ongoing personal injustice here to Mr X to justify us investigating. We recognise the way the Council dealt with the matter, before its recent CIL exemption decision, may have caused Mr X some frustration or annoyance and required him to contact or chase the Council several times. But that does not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice to him which warrants an investigation.
7. Mr X also complained about the Council advising him he had no right of appeal against its CIL decision. National government information on CILs says there is no appeal right against CIL liability decisions for residential property extensions. There is not enough evidence of Council fault on this point to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the Council’s decision to provide the CIL exemption means there is insufficient ongoing injustice to him to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council advising Mr X he had no right of appeal against its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman