Wokingham Borough Council (21 002 420)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 10-Jan-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his application for a COVID-19 business grant causing financial difficulties. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached the decision to refuse the grant. The Council considered the evidence provided by Mr X and took the view the business was not trading and therefore not eligible.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 116)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 10-Jan-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 business grant. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Westminster City Council (21 006 835)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 06-Jan-2022

Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly refused her business an Additional Restrictions Grant resulting in her missing out. We found fault in the Council’s decision making. We recommended it provide Ms X with an apology and payment for uncertainty, review its decision and act to prevent recurrence.

Westminster City Council (20 006 164)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 05-Jan-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s delay in dealing with his application for a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant meant he missed the opportunity to apply for a discretionary grant. There is no evidence to suggest any action by the Council prevented Mr X from applying for the discretionary grant.

Manchester City Council (21 002 470)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 05-Jan-2022

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of a business’s applications for several different COVID-19 support grants. This is because its eligibility rests of the question of its liability for business rates, which is a matter subject to an ongoing appeal to the magistrates’ court. We therefore cannot intervene in the matter.

Manchester City Council (21 005 212)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 05-Jan-2022

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of a business’s liability for rates, relief and a COVID-19 support grant. This is because there is an ongoing appeal to the magistrates’ court by a different business, the outcome of which will also affect this business’s situation.

London Borough of Croydon (21 005 990)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 04-Jan-2022

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse a Small Business Grant resulting in the loss of this grant and a discretionary grant. We found fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s grant application. We recommended the Council provide Miss X with an apology, payment for time and trouble, and a payment of £10,000, equal to the missed grant. We also recommended it take action to prevent recurrence of the identified fault.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 329)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 22-Dec-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council asking Mrs X to repay a business grant. The Council has done enough to remedy any injustice caused by fault on its part. Personal injury and defamation are more appropriately for the courts.

Cheltenham Borough Council (21 003 838)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 20-Dec-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to grant the Expanded Retail Discount and that it is demanding payment of the business rates in full when he has explained the business is experiencing significant financial difficulties. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to award the Expanded Retail Discount. However, the Council was at fault for not providing Mr X with details of its hardship rate relief policy.

Manchester City Council (21 004 431)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 17-Dec-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her business grants causing her to struggle financially. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making.