Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing her a business grant. This is because the evidence suggests the Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused her application for a business grant and told her the business was not based in the Council’s area, which she believes is wrong. She states not receiving the grant worsened her business’ financial difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council/care provider followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19”.
3. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided and information on the Valuation Office Agency’s website. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. The government has given councils some funding for discretionary grants to businesses affected by the Covid-19 restrictions. Each council can make grants to some businesses in its area.
6. The Council refused Mrs X’s application for a grant because the Council said Mrs X’s business was not in its area. The Council stated it had not charged business rates for the address of Mrs X’s business since 2017 and that address was now in a neighbouring borough’s area. Mrs X says the neighbouring borough did not accept her application either and told her that her business was in the Council’s (Richmond’s) area.
7. Mrs X told me she pays a company rent to trade from premises and store goods there. Mrs X sent me an email from that company, which says it ‘falls under [the neighbouring borough]’s tax are[a], but was changed from Richmond last year’. So the company Mrs X rents her business premises from agrees with the Council.
8. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which is independent of councils, decides which area a business is in for business rates purposes. I checked the VOA’s website. It shows that in September 2019 the VOA removed the relevant address from the Council’s rating list and added it to the neighbouring borough’s rating list. The change was backdated to April 2017.
9. Mrs X also showed me an email from a company from which she hires a post box for her business. That company has a different address and postcode to Mrs X’s business. That company says it pays business rates to the Council. However, that only relates to Mrs X’s post box. It does not show Mrs X’s business is itself in the Council’s area.
10. The balance of evidence suggests the property Mrs X trades from stopped being in the Council’s area in 2019, before the Covid-19 grants system existed. So I do not fault the Council for refusing Mrs X’s grant application.
11. Commenting on a draft of this decision, Mrs X expressed frustration at the situation. I do understand Mrs X’s frustration. However, my role is to consider Mrs X’s complaint about the Council. Overall, the evidence, including from the VOA and the company Mrs X rents her premises from, suggests the Council is not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman