Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to give her a small business grant, causing increased financial loss and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to give her a small business grant, causing increased financial loss and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Ms X and I reviewed documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered any comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

Grant Funding Schemes

6. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Government introduced two grant schemes to support businesses. In March 2020 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published guidance for councils on how to apply these: “Grant Funding Schemes”.
7. Funding is payable to the person recorded as the ratepayer in respect of the business on the 11 March 2020. However, where a council has reason to believe the information they hold about the ratepayer on 11 March is inaccurate they may withhold or recover the grant and take reasonable steps to identify the correct ratepayer.
8. Any changes to the rating list (rateable value or to the hereditament) after 11 March 2020, including changes which have been backdated, should be ignored for the purposes of eligibility. However, in cases where it was factually clear to a council on 11 March that the rating list was inaccurate on that date, it has discretion to award the grant based on their view of who would have been entitled to it.

Small Business Grant

9. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, were eligible for Small Business Rates Relief (SBRR) may be eligible for a Small Business Grant of £10,000.
10. Of relevance in this case, eligibility for SBRR is subject to s43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This says the rate applies to occupied businesses.

Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant

11. If a recipient is eligible for the Small Business Grant they are excluded from accessing this grant.
12. A business must be eligible for the Expanded Retail Discount to qualify for a grant of either £10,000 or £25,000 depending on the rateable value of the property. Of relevance in this case, the Expanded Retail Discount is only available to occupied businesses that are mainly used for retail, hospitality or leisure.

What happened

13. Ms X runs a retail business, Company X, from a property she rents.
14. The Council says it recorded Company A as the ratepayer at the property on 11 March 2020 and it had no reason at that time to believe its records were incorrect.
15. On 23 March 2020 Ms X called the Council. The Council’s record of the call says:
• Ms X took over the lease on the property from 1 March 2020.
• The store is not yet open as she has work to do on the facilities; a toilet needed repair.
• The Council told Ms X to inform it once she had moved in.
• Ms X said she did not want the previous tenant getting a grant.
• The Council told Ms X a grant is only for occupied properties i.e. trading businesses. However, she was not yet trading.
16. Following the call, on the same date, Ms X emailed the Council to apply for SBRR and asked to backdate this to 1 March 2020, being the date she started trading.
17. The Council asked Ms X for further information to update its records.
18. The Council asked Ms X for a copy of her lease, a bank statement and to confirm when she occupied the premises. It said during the call on 23 March she said she would not be opening for a while as work was required on the toilet facilities. She said she would contact the Council to provide the date of occupation.
19. Ms X provided the documents requested and confirmed she started trading on 1 March 2020. Although there were plumbing issues this was not a customer toilet and did not impact on opening hours or trading times.
20. The Council then received information from third parties which caused it to question who was liable to pay the rates and whether anyone occupied and traded from the property on 11 March.
21. The Council has provided a copy of an internal memo which reports the Council did not consider Ms X occupied the property on 11 March taking into account the third party information, the phone call with Ms X on 23 March and Ms X’s email of the same date.
22. On 28 May the Council refused Ms X’s request for a business grant because she was not the eligible ratepayer.
23. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision as she believed she met the eligibility criteria for a grant. She said her landlord would provide further information in support.
24. The Council received information from Ms X’s landlord.
25. The Council then responded to Ms X, outlining the grant eligibility criteria with reference to Government guidance. It did not consider Ms X was the valid ratepayer as at 11 March 2020. In addition, it understood the property was still empty and she had not started to trade. In making this decision it took into account:
• A telephone call on 23 March about her intention to take over, but confirming she had not yet opened.
• An email of 17 March between the owner and the previous tenant asking for the keys. They were needed to access the property as the previous tenant had changed the locks.
• An email of 29 April confirming the previous tenant still had the keys. This email included information about the state of disrepair of the floor, which was one of the reasons for them leaving.
• A visit made by the previous tenant to the premises on 30 April to take a final electricity reading. Evidence supplied from that date confirms the property was empty and was in the same position from when they moved out in February 2020.
26. The Council told Ms X she could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
27. Ms X contacted the Council again. She explained the previous tenant left at the end of February and so was not the occupier on 11 March and should not have received a grant. She queried who accessed her shop in April. She disputed the content of the call on 23 March. She did not say she had not started trading and sent an email on the same date which said otherwise. She had a key to the premises but it appeared the previous tenants also did. The business was on the rating list on 11 March.
28. Ms X says the Council then called her to tell her empty properties did not qualify. However, the Council says it has no record of this call.
29. The Council sent a further response to Ms X that it had already reviewed her case and she should contact the Ombudsman. However, it would address her points:
• It considers the property was empty on 11 March and so no-one could get a grant.
• Ms X should raise any concerns about access with the landlord.
• It has relied on staff records, emails and contact with third parties.
• No additional evidence of occupation on 11 March has been provided. It considered there was no evidence to suggest its records were incorrect.
• It cannot share third party information with her.
30. Ms X contacted the Ombudsman disputing the Council’s decision. She said if the Council had visited her shop in early March it would have seen the stock and the shop set up. But after lockdown she had to remove everything for security reasons.

Findings

31. Funding is payable to the person recorded as the ratepayer on 11 March unless the Council has reason to believe its records are inaccurate. And funding is only available to occupied businesses.
32. The Council refused Ms X a grant because she was not the eligible ratepayer. I note on 11 March it recorded Company A as the ratepayer. I also note there is nothing to suggest the Council had reason to believe its records were inaccurate at that time. The Council’s decision was in line with Government guidance. I do not find any fault in the Council’s decision making.
33. The Council did not have to give any further reasons for refusing the grant. However, it gave an additional reason; that Ms X was not in occupation on 11 March. The Council outlined the evidence it relied on in reaching this decision. I note Ms X disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the Council, however I cannot question the Council’s decision simply because Ms X disagrees with it. The Council considered the information available at the time and decided there was no evidence of occupation on 11 March. I do not find any fault in the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no evidence of fault in how the Council decided on Ms X’s request for a business grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman