Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a business grant application. The main issue has been resolved as the Council has now paid the grant. Investigation would be disproportionate in the circumstances and would be unlikely to find fault significantly affecting what happened.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about matters related to his application for a COVID-19-related business grant. He states this caused stress and his business had to spend time pursuing the matter.

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 can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X supplied, information from the Council and information on the Valuation Office Agency’s website. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In March 2020, the government created schemes for councils to pay grants of £10,000 to small businesses. This was because the Covid-19 restrictions affected so many of those businesses. A business’ right to a grant depended on its being on the business rating list on 11 March 2020 and meeting some other criteria.
8. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles the rating list, including the addresses of business premises, and decides if a business is liable for business rates and, if so, its rateable value.
9. Mr X’s business works from a suite of offices in a building of such suites. On 11 March 2020, the relevant date for grant eligibility, the business worked from a suite it understood was called ‘Suite Y’ (this statement does not give the actual address, for confidentiality reasons).
10. Mr X applied for a business grant giving the business’ address as ‘Suite Y.’ At that time, ‘Suite Y’ was not on the VOA’s rating list. The Council refused the grant on the basis that the business was not on the rating list. It upheld that position when Mr X complained.
11. The rating list also contained an entry for an address (‘Suite Z’) on the same floor as Suite X. The Council’s records showed a different company at that address.
12. After that, Mr X pointed out the VOA’s rating list contained a property called ‘Suite Z’ that, from its description, Mr X suggested was the suite his business occupied. Three days later, a Council officer inspected the offices, concluding Suites Y and Z referred to the same offices, the correct address was Suite Y and Mr X’s business had been there since before 11 March 2020.
13. Mr X suggests the Council then did nothing. However, the information from the Council and from the VOA website suggest the Council then contacted the VOA about the matter. That is normal practice when a council learns something that could affect the rating list. The VOA’s website shows that seventeen days after the Council’s inspection the VOA changed the address on the rating list from Suite Z to Suite Y and backdated the change to the date Mr X’s business moved into that suite. The Council states this enabled it to offer the grant.

My analysis

14. The Council had to base its decisions on the VOA’s rating list. As Suite Y was not on the rating list at 11 March 2020, I see no fault in the Council at first refusing the grant. The Council had no duty to search the rating list to see if a different address might actually relate to Mr X’s business. Even had it done so, if the records suggested another business was in Suite Y, the Council would not have connected Suite Y to Mr X.
15. When Mr X provided more information suggesting his property might already be on the rating list but with a different address description, the Council reacted properly by inspecting, awaiting action by the VOA then offering the grant. I see no fault by the Council that might have significantly affected those events.
16. Mr X is dissatisfied with the service from the Council and wants the Ombudsman to investigate, get an apology and for the Council’s overview and scrutiny committee to consider the matter.
17. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate every complaint or to regulate or oversee councils’ activities generally. Here, when Mr X first contacted us, the main point underlying the complaint was his wanting the small business grant. He has now received that grant. So the main point resulting in the complaint has been resolved. There is nothing more for the Ombudsman to achieve on that main point. For the reasons I have given, it is also unlikely any investigation would find fault on the main events.
18. Mr X is also dissatisfied with how the Council handled his formal complaint. As we are not investigating the substantive matters giving rise to the complaint, it would be disproportionate to consider the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation, as paragraph 5 explained.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the main issue has been resolved and investigation would not be proportionate or likely to be productive.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman