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:

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 274)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 14-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 related business grants for his two businesses. As one business is a dental practice it was not eligible for the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant and so the refusal was not fault. Mr X did not provide evidence requested regarding the retail use of his other business and there is no fault in the Council not reviewing its decision.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 856)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 10-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council wrongly refused Mrs X a small business grant resulting in her business closure. We find fault in the Council's decision making process that did not affect the decision outcome but caused uncertainty. We recommend the Council provides an apology to Mrs X and takes steps to prevent recurrence.

  • East Hertfordshire District Council (20 008 157)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 09-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused him a business grant, causing increased business risk. We find no fault in the Council's decision making process but we find fault in its communications with Mr X. We recommend the Council provide an apology and payment for time and trouble.

  • Manchester City Council (20 007 626)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 03-Jun-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault because it registered the complainant's business at the wrong address for business rates. This meant the business was then wrongly given small business rates relief. The Council has agreed to waive a portion of the backdated payments it now requires the business to make. The Council was also at fault because it did not consider the appropriateness of reclaiming a wrongly-paid small business grant. It has agreed to do so now, and apply the same consideration to any similar future case.

  • Manchester City Council (20 009 591)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 02-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council awarded a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant and then cancelled it and demanded repayment. The Council's failure to show it gave consideration to Mr X's circumstances when deciding to recover the grant is fault. The Council will now reconsider this decision.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 005 365)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 01-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused COVID-19 business grant assistance, which added to the financial hardship her business suffered as a result of the pandemic. The Council was not at fault.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 454)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 01-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided his business was not eligible for retail rates relief, which meant it did not qualify for a Retail Hospitality and Leisure grant. There was no fault in the way the Council considered this.

  • Scarborough Borough Council (20 009 049)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 28-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not operate its discretionary business grants scheme fairly as it awarded grants per vessel even though the scheme states only one grant per business. We do not find fault because the Council decided to award grants per vessel if separate accounts were filed and there is no evidence to show it did not apply this consistently. Mr X only had one commercially operational vessel and so has been awarded the correct amount.

  • Horsham District Council (20 006 238)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 28-May-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's refusal to award her business rates relief and a business grant, causing her financial difficulties and distress. She is also unhappy it issued a summons in error. We do not intend to investigate matters that have not yet completed the Council's complaints process. We find no fault in the Council's decision making on rates relief and a grant. However, we find the Council at fault as it issued a reminder notice in error. We are satisfied with the action it has already taken to remedy this.

  • Wealden District Council (20 007 019)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 27-May-2021

    Summary: Mr H complains the Council has refused his business financial support through a series of grant schemes designed to help businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the decisions taken by the Council.