South Oxfordshire District Council (21 011 416)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 31-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to seek repayment of COVID-19 business grants and that this will cause him financial difficulties. The Council wrongly awarded the grants which was fault. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to recover the grants after it realised it had paid them in error.

Dover District Council (21 016 500)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 31-Mar-2022

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the decision to end the complainant’s council tax support. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

North Northamptonshire Council (21 008 400)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 29-Mar-2022

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered the complainant’s application for a discretionary COVID-19 business restart grant. The Council was at fault because it did not explore the complainant’s requests for reasonable adjustments, but this did not cause him an injustice. It is not the Council’s fault that the various COVID-19 support schemes can be difficult to understand, and it has taken appropriate steps to mitigate this. We have therefore completed our investigation.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 018 060)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 28-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for an ‘Additional Restrictions Grant' for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council (21 011 236)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 25-Mar-2022

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered an application for business rates relief under the expanded retail discount scheme. Although the complainant disagrees with the Council’s view, the Council was entitled to make the decision it did, and we have no grounds to criticise it. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Harlow District Council (21 011 768)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 25-Mar-2022

Summary: Miss X complained the Council unfairly refused her a business grant and was poor in its communications, causing financial loss and distress. We find no evidence of fault by the Council.

City of Wolverhampton Council (21 005 392)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 22-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his business a COVID-19 business grant, causing financial difficulties. We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in how the Council determined Mr X’s application.

Manchester City Council (21 006 849)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 15-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide information about business grants causing him to miss out. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Westminster City Council (21 017 043)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 14-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award her two self-isolation support payments. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 503)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 11-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a company which, in 2020, did not receive a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant set up to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We find fault in the Council’s customer service and in its explanation for the non-award. This has caused injustice in the form of uncertainty, time and trouble and the Council has agreed to apologise for this. However, we do not consider the Council could have paid the company a grant for reasons explained in this statement.