COVID-19 archive 2020-2021


Archive has 95 results

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 003 826)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 02-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council has not awarded his business a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant under a scheme to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse a grant. But we do find fault in the Council giving Mr D misleading advice while it considered his application, which raised his expectations he would receive a grant. The Council accepts this finding and at the end of this statement we explain what action it has agreed to remedy the injustice that resulted.

  • Bristol City Council (20 003 011)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 27-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council misled her and her husband into thinking their business would receive funding from the Small Business Grant Fund designed to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We uphold the complaint finding the couple received poor customer service and advice when applying for such support. This caused raised expectations and put them to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we explain what action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

  • Southampton City Council (20 008 360)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 27-Jan-2021

    Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to pay business grants. The evidence suggests the Council was not at fault.

  • Durham County Council (20 008 317)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 26-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award a business grant. We have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council was at fault.

  • Wealden District Council (20 002 482)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 21-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr G complains the Council wrongly refused him a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant (payable to businesses impacted by COVID-19). We do not find the Council at fault for deciding another person should receive the grant. However, we do fault in the Council’s customer service which put Mr G to some unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy for that injustice, which we detail at the end of this statement.

  • Woking Borough Council (20 002 489)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 19-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council refused her business financial support under grant schemes set up to support small businesses impacted by COVID-19 causing her to miss out on a grant. We uphold the complaint, finding the Council did not follow or take account of all relevant guidance in refusing the business a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant. The Council has agreed to review that decision.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 008 370)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 19-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a government grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

  • Norwich City Council (20 002 300)

    Statement Not upheld Covid-19 14-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused him a small business grant, causing financial loss and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 205)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 14-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a government grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 000 929)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 13-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not follow a proper decision making process and wrongly refused his business a grant, causing distress, financial loss and redundancies. We find fault in the Council’s decision making process causing uncertainty. We recommend the Council provides an apology, makes a payment, reviews its decision and acts to prevent recurrence.

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