Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a business grant available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to award his wife’s business a grant available due to COVID-19.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (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)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. In March 2020, the Government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of them. Businesses in receipt of Small Business Rates Relief (SBRR) or Rural Rates Relief (RRR) as of 11 March 2020, were eligible for a payment of £10,000.
8. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced guidance to help councils administer the grants. The guidance explains that later changes to the rating list, even if such changes are backdated to 11 March 2020, do not entitle a business to a grant. A council can make an exception if, on 11 March 2020, it already had good reason to believe the list was inaccurate for a particular address or business.

What happened

9. In December 2019, Mr X’s wife (Mrs X) set up a business on the upper floor of a building which housed another business on the ground floor. Mrs X did not register for business rates. Mr X says this was because in November 2019, the Council said she did not need to due to the “size and employment status of the business”.
10. Because of COVID-19, Mrs X’s business had to close. Mrs X applied to the Council for one of the grants available. The Council rejected the application because the business was not on the Council’s business rating list. The business was not therefore in receipt of SBRR or RRR, and so it did not meet the criteria set out in the Government’s guidance.
11. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about its decision. They referred to the advice they say the Council gave them in November 2019. In its responses to their complaints the Council:
• Confirmed the eligibility criteria for the grant.
• Said it had no record of calls to the business rates team from Mr and Mrs X before March 2020. The only calls it had records of were to the planning team in November 2019, and its waste team in December 2019 and January 2020.
• Explained the above calls had not been recorded, but said the planning and waste teams would not offer advice on business rates.
• Said it had discretion to deviate from the Government’s guidance, but only if it knew on 11 March 2020 the rating list was not accurate. The Council had not been able to establish this was the case and so it would not award the grant.
• Accepted Mr and Mrs X were unhappy the Council had backdated Mrs X’s business rates bill and referred to the relevant legislation.
• Apologised for the time taken to respond to Mr and Mrs X, but explained this was due to officers making all reasonable enquires to find evidence.

Assessment

12. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not a right of further appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. As I explain in paragraph 4, we can only criticise a council’s decision if there was fault in the way it was reached. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, we need to consider what an investigation could achieve.
13. I understand Mr and Mrs X are disappointed with the Council’s decision. But on 11 March 2020, Mrs X’s business was not in receipt of SBRR or RRR. I do not therefore see any fault in the Council’s original decision to refuse Mrs X’s application for a grant.
14. Mr and Mrs X claim the Council wrongly advised them in November 2019 that Mrs X did not need to register for business rates. The Council has considered this point. But it says the only call it can identify from Mr and Mrs X was to its planning team - which it says would not advise on business rates. The Council has decided Mrs X’s business does not qualify for a grant because there is no evidence it was aware on 11 March 2020 the rating list was wrong.
15. While I understand Mr and Mrs X's frustrations, I do not believe there is enough evidence of fault in how the Council has considered their application and complaint to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Council considered the original application based on the evidence it had at the time. It has investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint and explained its decision with reference to the Government’s guidance.
16. There is a clear difference of opinion about what was said during the telephone call in November. But even if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we could ever say on the balance of probabilities that Mr and Mrs X were wrongly advised. It is therefore unlikely we could add anything to the response they have already received. The Ombudsman will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add anything to the Council’s response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman