Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing a Covid-19 business grant. This is because the evidence does not suggest the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not give him a business grant. He states this compounded the financial difficulties the Covid-19 restrictions caused the business.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered correspondence the Council supplied and government guidance on Covid-19 grants and business rates relief. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. 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 those businesses. A property’s right to a grant depends on its rateable value on the business rating list and its being ‘occupied’ (in business rates terms) and eligible for certain business rates reliefs as at 11 March 2020.
7. To qualify for the retail, hospitality and leisure grant, a property had to be ‘wholly or mainly’ being used for retail, hospitality or leisure and reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public.
8. A property that the Council treated as empty, rather than occupied (for business rates purposes) on 11 March 2020 is not eligible for a grant. It is for the Council to decide if a property is occupied for business rates purposes. The fact that someone owns or rents a property or is carrying out some activity does not necessarily mean the property is rateably occupied.
9. Mr X’s business rented a property on 27 February 2020. The property had once been a shop, though no shop had traded there for over a year. The Council had given it business rates relief as an empty property. Mr X states he intended to open a shop but after starting the tenancy did some refurbishment first.
10. Mr X and the Council agree no shop was open and trading at 11 March 2020, or indeed well before then. So the relevant point is whether Mr X’s company taking the tenancy on 27 February and starting refurbishment work made the property rateably occupied on 11 March, in which case it would have qualified for a grant. The Council decided the property was not rateably occupied. As paragraph 4 explained, the Ombudsman could only criticise that decision if it was wrongly reached.
11. The Council’s position is that to qualify for a grant, a property must be rateably occupied, which means beneficially occupied, which in this case means being used as a shop. That is the Council’s interpretation of the law on when to treat a property as occupied or unoccupied for business rates purposes. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to interpret the law or to choose between different interpretations where this is disputed. That is for the courts.
12. The Council said Mr X’s evidence (evidence of the tenancy, rent, utility supplies and purchase of materials for use in refurbishment work) only shows that at 11 March refurbishment work was underway and the tenant company had registered for utility supplies. The Council judged that was not evidence of a shop trading. A Council officer also noted the property had been shuttered rather than open to customers. The Council decided it was appropriate in the circumstances to continue treating the property as unoccupied in rating terms, and therefore continue giving it relief from business rates. Therefore the Council decided the property was not eligible for a grant because it was not rateably occupied.
13. The Council reached its decision based on its understanding of the law and the evidence it saw. Therefore the decision appears properly reached. Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council but that does not enable the Ombudsman to fault the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the evidence suggests any investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman