Privacy settings

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.

COVID-19

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Lewisham (20 012 959)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 13-Sep-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council was wrong to refuse her a Local Restrictions Support Grant, resulting in her missing out on this funding. We find no fault in the Council's decision making.

  • London Borough of Islington (21 001 069)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 12-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault, because an officer did not properly explore the reason for the complainant's call about business rates, which meant it gave him misleading advice. But this call alone should not have been enough for the complainant to believe his business had been granted an empty property exemption from business rates. Nor do we consider the business could have qualified for the exemption if it had been given different advice. There is some injustice to the complainant in the frustration caused by the Council's fault, but the Council has already taken appropriate steps to address this. We have therefore completed our investigation.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (20 013 474)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 10-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing a COVID-19 Test and Trace payment to Mr X on the grounds his application was late. However, it was at fault for not making it clear to potential applicants that a deadline applied. It has since changed the information on its web-site.

  • North Kesteven District Council (20 012 058)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 10-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in paying a Small Business grant to Mrs X. This added to the financial difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and put her to the time and trouble of pursuing the Council. It should apologise and pay her £300 for the injustice caused. It was not at fault for refusing other COVID-19 business grants nor for the level of grant paid under its Additional Restrictions - Severe Impact scheme.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 899)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 08-Sep-2021

    Summary: There was no significant fault in how the Council considered, and refused, a COVID-19 test and trace support payment. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

  • East Hampshire District Council (20 013 803)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 08-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained he was not awarded the same COVID-19 grants as some of his competitors putting him at a disadvantage. Mr X's business was not mandated to close and so was not entitled to some of the grants he claims his competitors received from different local authorities. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council administered the grants for Mr X.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 012 426)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 07-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding not to pay Mr X a COVID-19 business grant under round 1 of its Additional Restrictions Grant scheme.

  • Southampton City Council (20 013 490)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 03-Sep-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision the complainant's business was not eligible to receive rates relief under the expanded retail discount. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 115)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 02-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not inform him promptly that he was not entitled to a Local Restrictions Support Grant because his business was not within its area. Mr X has now been paid the grant by the correct local authority which provides a remedy for his complaint. It is not proportionate to investigate the issues relating to communications and so the Ombudsman will discontinue his investigation.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 010 717)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 02-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to process his application for a Small Business Grant before the deadline of 30 September causing his business financial hardship. Mr X sent all requested information before the deadline but the Council did not deal with it until 8 October. While this delay is fault, the Council has remedied the injustice caused by making a payment of £10,000 to Mr X.