Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a small business grant (Covid-19 support). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council that she does not qualify for a small business grant. The grant is designed to help businesses affected by Covid-19.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start 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

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses to Mrs X’s application for a grant. I considered emails Mrs X sent to the Council and the Government rules on eligibility for the grant. I considered comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Small business grant

4. The rules, set by Government, say a person is eligible for a grant if they were eligible for small business rate relief on 11 March 2020. The eligibility rules for small business rate relief say that the office space or building must be occupied. There is another grant (for Retail, Hospitality and Leisure) for which the eligibility rules also require the person to be occupying the business premise on 11 March 2020.
5. Case law has established that occupied means ‘not empty’. For a business to be occupied there would need to be evidence of occupation such as furniture and office equipment.

What happened

6. Mrs X took out a lease for office space in February 2020. She decided to refurbish the office and did not immediately start to use the space. Due to Covid-19 it took longer than anticipated to complete the refurbishment. Mrs X was not working in the office on 11 March 2020.
7. Mrs X applied for a small business grant (or a grant under the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure rules). The Council refused the application because Mrs X was not occupying the office on 11 March 2020. The Council explained it has to follow the Government rules.
8. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She had a business lease on 11 March and says she would have been in occupation had there not been a delay by the previous tenant and the need for refurbishment. She also questions whether a business space would be occupied if the worker was on holiday or on sick leave.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say a person must have been occupying the business premise on 11 March 2020. Mrs X was not in occupation on that date so the Council has applied the Government rules correctly and there is no need to start an investigation.
10. I have seen a photograph Mrs X sent to the Council in support of the application. The photograph shows a completely empty office; no furniture, office equipment or facilities for staff. If someone goes on holiday, or is sick, then the worker is absent but the office space continues to contain furniture and the other equipment needed to run the business. And, while Mrs X had a lease that covered 11 March, the rules do not say that having a business lease is enough to qualify for the grant.
11. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. He cannot intervene simply because the Council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman