Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a retail, hospitality and leisure grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision. The Council has offered Mr X £125 for failures in its handling of the application and delay in dealing with his complaint and this provides a suitable remedy for his injustice from these issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a retail, hospitality and leisure (RHL) grant to help businesses deal with the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. He says that as a result of the pandemic he lost his home and has suffered mental ill-health.

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 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• the council has offered a satisfactory remedy for any injustice resulting from its actions.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. In March 2020, the Government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses and retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of them.
6. Under the RHLG grant fund businesses in England with a rateable value of less than £51,000 and that would have been in receipt of the expanded retail discount (ERD) on 11 March 2020 were entitled to a cash grant.
7. Mr X has run a business from his premises in the Council’s area for more than five years. For some of this time he leased part of the premises (a shop) to a third party. He believed the third party had obtained planning permission from the Council for the split and that they had informed the Valuation Office Agency so it could reassess the rateable value of the premises.
8. Mr X informed the Council in 2019 that he was carrying out refurbishments to the premises and it was therefore closed and empty. He says he traded again from his part of the premises from February to 17 March 2020 when he had to close due to the impact of COVID-19 on his business. The Council says it was unaware of this until 27 March 2020 when Mr X applied for an RHL grant.
9. The Council refused Mr X’s application and upheld its decision not to award him a grant following an internal review. Mr X complained and the Council responded to his complaints confirming its decision but acknowledging some fault in its handling of his application and complaint. In total it has offered Mr X £125 in recognition of its failures.
10. Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s responses and believes he was entitled to the RHL grant. He suggests the Council is to blame for the premises not being split into two separate units and that the Council must have known about this as it increased the amount of his business rates.
11. There is clearly some dispute over internal changes made to the premises and what the Council knew/should have known about them before 11 March 2020. But regardless of this neither business was entitled to ERD so they did not qualify for a RHL grant.
12. The information Mr X has provided confirms his business was not open to visiting members of the public on 11 March 2020 and the other business had been closed since 2019. Government guidance confirms that in these circumstances Mr X was not eligible for ERD or the RHL grant:

“10. Properties that will benefit from the relief will be occupied hereditaments that are wholly or mainly being used:

a. a shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinema and life music venues…

11. We consider shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas and live music venues to mean:

i. Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public…

iii. Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of food and/or drink to visiting members of the public...

14. To qualify for the relief the hereditament should be wholly or mainly being used for the above qualifying purposes.

16. The list below sets out the types of uses that the Government does not consider to be an eligible use for the purpose of this relief…

ii. Hereditaments that are not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public."

13. The Council has also explained that the increase in Mr X’s business rates did not relate to any split of the premises but to a national revaluation which took place in April 2017. This is confirmed by the Valuation Office Agency’s records.
14. I am therefore satisfied Mr X was not entitled to an RHL grant and that the Council’s offer of £125 is sufficient to remedy any injustice resulting from fault in the Council’s handling of his application and complaint. It is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for him.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision not to award Mr X an RHL grant. The Council has provided a suitable remedy for its failings in dealing with the application and Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman