Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not paying him a business grant. Any investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to pay him a Covid-19-related business grant. He states this worsened his business’ financial problems and his own stress when the business could not trade during the government’s COVID-19 lockdown.

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 provided and copy correspondence and records from the Council. 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.
7. A business’ right to a grant depends on its rateable value on the business rating list and its eligibility for either small business rates relief or the expanded retail discount scheme (‘retail rates relief’) as at 11 March 2020.
8. A property that the Council treated as empty (for business rates purposes) on 11 March 2020 would not qualify for small business or retail rates relief, so would not qualify for a grant. It is for the Council to decide if a property is empty for business rates purposes. The fact that someone has rented a property or is carrying out some activity there does not necessarily mean the property is occupied for business rates purposes.
9. Mr X bought a hospitality business in December 2019. He did not open the business then, instead carrying out refurbishment works. He asked the Council for empty property rates relief, which the Council granted for three months (the standard arrangement). That period ended on 10 March 2020. Shortly before then, the Council sent Mr X a bill for the period after that, based on an assumption the property would no longer be empty. Mr X replied on 24 March, stating:

‘…business was closed for renovation since [a date in December 2019] and still not completed due to the coronavirus situation.’

He then referred to the recent bill and said:

• ‘I do not have sufficient funds with me and I request you to look into this matter urgently and find the provision to exempt my rates in the light of the present Coronavirus situation.’
1. Also on 24 March 2020, Mr X completed a Council form headed ‘Application for Empty Relief.’ He stated the property was empty because it had ceased trading, he was the new owner, the property was ‘under renovation and still closed due to coronavirus situation.’
2. Based on this information, on 31 March the Council then gave the property empty property rates relief, backdated to 11 March 2020 so the empty property relief continued from when the initial three-month relief had ended. At that point, Mr X had not yet sought a Covid-19-related business grant.
3. Based on what Mr X had said, there was no fault in the Council deciding in late March to treat the property as remaining empty (in business rates terms) throughout March. Indeed, that was what Mr X had asked the Council to do.
4. It follows that, as the property was treated as unoccupied at 11 March, there was also no fault in the Council later deciding the property was not eligible for a grant, in line with the government guidance I explained in paragraph 8 above.
5. Later – when applying for a grant and appealing against the Council’s refusal of a grant – Mr X said the renovation was completed and the property occupied several days before 11 March 2020. Mr X states the business would have opened then but the developing COVID-19 situation made it difficult to get staff and attract customers so he did not open. Two weeks later, the government announced the lockdown so Mr X could not then open even had he wanted to.
6. The Council asked Mr X for evidence. There was no fault in that, given the seeming change in what Mr X was saying. Mr X then provided evidence of his liability to pay rent for the property, evidence of works taking place (including the purchase of grouting material after 11 March 2020), a copy of a water bill and a bank statement showing no payments in or out from 7 March to 6 April 2020.
7. The Council was not persuaded the evidence showed rateable occupation of the property at 11 March 2020. As I explained above, being responsible for a property’s rent or other bills, or carrying out some activity at a property, does not necessarily mean there is rateable occupation (otherwise Mr X could never have received any empty property relief). It is for the Council to judge in each case whether a property was rateably occupied at a particular date. Here, the Council’s decision was based on considering the evidence available. I therefore consider that decision was properly reached. So, while Mr X is entitled to disagree with the decision, I cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 4 explained.
8. Mr X cited the government guidance on paying a grant to the person the Council’s records showed was the ratepayer on 11 March 2020. However, that does not mean Mr X (who was the ratepayer) qualified for a grant. Eligibility for a grant is also subject to other criteria, as I have set out above.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision to refuse a grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman