North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 315)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 25-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council unfairly excluded home-based businesses from its COVID-19 Local Restrictions Support Grant scheme. He also said the Council gave misleading information about its grant schemes and failed to exercise discretion. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for not keeping a record of its decision-making. However, the fault did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Ombudsman did not find evidence the Council misrepresented its grant schemes.

Leicester City Council (21 015 455)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 24-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a COVID-19 Test and Trace support payment. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Camden (21 005 275)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 24-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr C complained a retail business he represents did not receive a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant. We uphold this complaint, finding the Council made a flawed decision to refuse the grant. This caused uncertainty. The Council accepts these findings and will reconsider its decision as part of a series of actions agreed to remedy this injustice, set out in detail at the end of this statement.

Rossendale Borough Council (21 008 391)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 23-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his sporting club a COVID-19 grant on the basis that it is a members-only club and so not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public. Mr X says this has caused financial hardship. The Council failed to give clear and consistent reasons for refusal and failed to seek information about the accessibility of the club. The Council will invite the club to submit evidence to show it is reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public and will reconsider eligibility for the grant.

London Borough of Newham (21 004 901)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 22-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him business grants and was poor in its communications, causing him distress and financial loss. We found fault in the Council’s decision making and communications causing injustice. We recommended the Council provide an apology, pay Mr X for distress, time and trouble, review its decision and act to prevent recurrence.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 007 846)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 18-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr E complained the Council refused him a test and trace support payment after he contracted COVID-19. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision.

Cornwall Council (21 015 562)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 18-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding council tax for a property that was empty during a COVID-19 national lockdown. The complaint about the Council demanding the council tax is late. We have no power to investigate the Council starting court action.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 571)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 16-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. Since Mr X’s complaint to us, the Council has paid him a grant. We cannot achieve significantly more than that.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 837)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 15-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr D complained the Council refused his business a Restart Grant to support it in re-opening following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions in April 2021. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision.

Liverpool City Council (20 010 430)

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making Mr X the named business ratepayer for a property and therefore not paying him some COVID-19-related business grants. This is mainly because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision on the main point at issue.