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 (21 007 499)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 10-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants and gave him incorrect advice. The Council initially refused a Restart grant for an incorrect reason but this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice because it reconsidered the application when he challenged its original decision.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 126)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a company which, in 2020, did not receive a payment from the Small Business Grant Fund set up to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We find fault in the Council's customer service and 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.

  • Elmbridge Borough Council (21 007 624)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him incorrect advice resulting in his missing out on financial support for his business. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Lancaster City Council (21 008 838)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 07-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take account of relevant powers to help her in respect of business rates at a pub following the death of the landlord during lockdown. Mrs X says the demand for payment of around £10,000 causes her significant financial hardship. There was no fault in the Council's consideration of her eligibility to the Expanded Retail Discount and Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant but it was at fault for not inviting her to make an application for Hardship Relief. Mrs X can now make such an application which is a suitable remedy.