Summary: Ms X complains the Council gave inadequate advice on business rates, resulting in its refusal of a small business grant and causing her distress. We find no fault in the Council’s actions or in its decision making.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council provided incorrect information about business rates in 2018, which led to it refusing a small business grant in 2020 because she was not the ratepayer. Although she has since received a discretionary grant, she has suffered distress. She wants the Council to accept its error, apologise and act to prevent recurrence.

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 investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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.
6. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered their comments before finalising this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Small Business Grant

7. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Government introduced two grant schemes to support businesses. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published guidance for councils on how to apply these: “Grant Funding Schemes” (March 2020).
8. Of relevance to this case, 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.
9. Funding is payable to the person recorded as the ratepayer in respect of the business on the 11 March 2020.
10. Councils should ignore any changes to the rating list (rateable value or hereditament) after 11 March even if those changes are backdated to 11 March. However, in cases where it was factually clear to the council on 11 March that the rating list was inaccurate on that date, it may withhold the grant and/or award the grant based on its view of who would have been entitled to it.

Valuation Office Agency

11. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) provides valuations and property advice to support taxation and benefits to the government and local authorities. It compiles and maintains lists detailing the rateable value of 1.9 million commercial properties for business rates.

What happened

12. Ms X says she contacted the Council in September 2018 to say both her own business and her husband’s business (Y) had moved into a property. She says the Council told her both businesses would be recorded on the business rates’ account but it would only bill Y. Ms X says she was unaware at the time that her business was not on the VOA rating list or that she should contact the VOA.
13. The Council has provided a copy of a memo which records its officer’s notes of a call with Ms X on 24 September 2018. This says:

“[Ms X] rang (XXX, use as contact tel number) to advise that commencing 15/08/18 lease is in place on this property to her (home address XXX) and her husband's company XXX (company number XXX). Sole property for both.”

14. On 25 September the Council emailed the building owner to check the previous occupant had left and Y had taken over from 15 August. The owner replied to confirm that was the case. I note they did not mention any other tenant.
15. On 18 March 2020 Ms X contacted the Council to check she would receive a small business grant. On 23 April she applied for a grant.
16. The Council refused a grant because Ms X was not the ratepayer.
17. Ms X complained the Council told her in 2018 she was on the business rates’ account but it appears this was incorrect or, due to its error, it did not record her on the account.
18. The Council responded to explain the VOA had not rated Ms X’s business separately and it was not on the rating list on 11 March. It had no indication the rating list was inaccurate before 11 March. It was unaware of any error until Ms X contacted it on 18 March. All its records relate to the registration of the other business, Y. While her business was now reported to the VOA it must ignore any changes to the rating list after 11 March.
19. Ms X contacted the Ombudsman. She said the Council did not record her business on the account despite saying it would and it did not tell her to go to the VOA when she contacted it in 2018.
20. In response to enquiries the Council said:
• It received information about Ms X’s business after the Government cut-off date of 11 March. After this date councils did not have to accept backdated changes to the rating list.
• The details from the phone conversation in September 2018 are a little unclear. However, it suggests it can be read that Ms X was registering her and her husband’s business, Y, and the home address was the same for both of them.
• It is impossible to verify with the member of staff how this information was interpreted from a conversation that occurred over two years ago. However, the information only mentions the one company name (Y).
• During September 2018, it made additional enquiries with the landlord concerning the outgoing tenant. Their reply only mentions the occupation of Y. They do not refer to the existence of any second lease with another business in the same premises. Business Rates staff had no reason to believe any other information was missing and took the landlord’s confirmation of the one business in good faith.
• It has since given Ms X £10,000 through its discretionary grant scheme.
21. In comments on my draft decision Ms X clarified she had no dealings with Y; she had a separate business, X. The Council’s notes of the call in September 2018 did not makes sense if read as though Y was her and her husband’s business.

Findings

22. Ms X says she did not know the Council had not registered her business in 2018 and was unaware of any need to contact the VOA until recently. Bearing in mind Ms X has raised a complaint due to recent events and, as she has good reason for not complaining sooner, I will exercise my discretion to investigate.
23. Ms X says she told the Council in September 2018 that her business occupied the property. The Council denies this. I consider the Council’s record of the call is unclear. However, that the Council only checked Y’s tenancy suggests it was unaware Ms X’s business was also in occupation. On the evidence available, I cannot say the Council knew Ms X’s business occupied the property. Therefore, I cannot expect it to have given any further information or advice to Ms X about contacting the VOA and I do not find fault.
24. There is nothing to suggest the Council received any other information about Ms X’s business before 11 March or had any reason to believe the rating list was inaccurate on 11 March. The Council refused Ms X a small business grant as she was not the ratepayer and her business was not on the rating list. The Council’s decision was in line with the Government guidance and so I do not find fault. Further, as Ms X has since received £10,000 from the Council’s discretionary grant fund, I find she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or decision making on Ms X’s request for a small business grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman