Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains the Council has refused her application for a small business grant.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. 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.
7. 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.
9. The Council has refused Miss X’s application and appeal for a grant. It has explained this is because Miss X’s business was not on the rating list on 11 March 2020. It could not therefore be eligible for SBRR or RRR and the grant of £10,000. The Council has said Miss X’s business entered the rating list after 11 March 2020. It has referred to the guidance which says backdated changes to the rating list do not entitle a business to a grant.
10. I understand Miss X is disappointed with the Council’s decision – especially as she has now received a business rates bill and SBRR for 2019/20. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way it has been reached. The Council has considered Miss X’s application and has decided she does not meet the criteria for a grant. This is a decision it was entitled to reach.
11. The Council has explained its decision to Miss X with reference to the relevant guidance. As I explain in paragraph 8, backdated changes to the rating list do not mean a business is entitled to a grant. The only exception is if the Council had reason to believe the list was inaccurate on 11 March 2020. This was not the case. I have not seen any fault in how the Council reached its decision and so it is not one the Ombudsman can question.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman