Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award him a discretionary business support grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has refused his application for a discretionary grant because he applied after the closing date. Mr X says he was not originally aware of the scheme and is unhappy the Council only had a two-week window for applications.

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 followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19”.
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. 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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Government has given councils some funding for discretionary grants to businesses affected by the Covid-19 restrictions. Each council should have its own policy on making these discretionary grants.
7. The Council’s own policy contained a two-week window when it would accept applications for discretionary business support grants. The policy says that if an application is refused, appeals can be submitted and will be considered by two senior officers.
8. Mr X owns a property he rents out as a holiday let. Mr X says he contacted the Council as soon as he became aware of its discretionary grants scheme. But this was after the published closing date for applications. The Council told Mr X to submit an appeal and it would consider his request. Mr X sent the Council details of the income his business had lost due to Covid-19.
9. The Council responded to Mr X. It said the scheme had been advertised nationally and locally and that other late applications had been refused. It refused Mr X’s appeal and referred him to the Ombudsman.
10. It was for the Council to decide its policy on the administration and payment of discretionary grants. The Council’s policy is clear and allowed two weeks for applications. This allowed it to award grants to businesses as quickly as possible – as was the Government’s intention. A two-week window is in line with many other councils. Mr X’s application was submitted after the closing date. The Council considered the information Mr X sent, but decided that because his application was late, it would not pay him a grant. This decision is in line with its published policy and is one the Council was entitled to reach. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman