Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 small business grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a grant for small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and discussed it with him.

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. A business’ right to a grant depends on its rateable value on the business rating list and its eligibility for certain business rate reliefs on 11 March 2020.
8. Mr X applied to the Council for a small business grant in mid-2020. He provided documents with his application including a copy of his lease, his insurance document, public liability insurance and a certificate relating to his business.
9. The Council refused Mr X’s application. This was on the basis it did not accept his business was trading from the premises on 11 March 2020. It noted his insurance document, public liability insurance and the certificate were all dated May 2020 and that another council department confirmed he had registered his business in May 2020 with an opening date in April 2020. It also commented that the start date on his lease was in April 2020.
10. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He has provided an amended copy of his lease showing an earlier date and says he was trading from early March 2020.
11. It is not for us to say the Council’s decision was wrong; we can only look for evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision. While I appreciate Mr X believes he is entitled to a grant the Council has clearly explained why it does not consider he is entitled to a grant and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision.
12. The decision is based on the evidence Mr X submitted with his application as well as its own records. Mr X may have provided an amended copy of his lease agreement, backdated to March 2020, but the Council did not consider this sufficient to show he was trading from the premises on 11 March 2020. Mr X claims it failed to consider two invoices he sent but these do not show, on balance, that he was trading on 11 March 2020. The invoices date to before Mr X says he took over the business and provide no evidence his business was open on that date.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman