Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X a business grant. An investigation would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view about the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused a COVID-19-related business grant for his holiday home business. He says not having a grant compounded the business’ problems from not being able to have holiday lettings due to the COVID-19 situation.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided and the relevant government guidance. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. 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.
6. A business’ right to such a grant depends on its being on the business rating list on 11 March 2020 and on meeting certain other criteria. Government guidance states 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 was already ‘factually clear’ to the Council that the rating list was inaccurate for a particular address or business.
7. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles the rating list and decides if a business is liable for business rates and, if so, its rateable value.
8. A property that is rented out as a holiday let might be liable for either council tax or business rates, depending on the precise circumstances.
9. Mr X has let out a property as a holiday home since 2016. On 11 March 2020 the property was on the council tax list, not the business rating list. Mr X says when he received the property’s council tax bill in 2016, he telephoned the Council to explain the property was now a holiday let and the bill wrongly contained the names of previous occupants. Mr X says he repeated this by telephone each year when the annual council tax bill arrived because the information had not been corrected, up to March 2020. He states, ‘At the time, I didn't feel the need to write to the Council after the calls and was not aware that they had not corrected the records until the following year, when I received the next Tax bill.’
10. The Council says its records show no contact suggesting the property should be on the business rates list rather than the council tax list before 12 March 2020. Mr X is unhappy with the implication he did not telephone the Council before then. He points out he paid the council tax and argues he would have had no reason to try to avoid being on the business rating list instead.
11. The Council refused a grant as the property was not on the rating list at 11 March 2020 and the Council does not believe it was factually clear to it then that the rating list was inaccurate.
12. As explained above, the Council could only offer a small business grant or retail, hospitality and leisure grant if:
1. on 11 March 2020, the business was on the rating list and met the other criteria, or
2. on 11 March 2020, the Council was ‘factually clear’ the rating list was inaccurate for this address. The relevant point here is not whether the rating list was inaccurate on 11 March 2020 but whether, on 11 March 2020, the Council knew the rating list was inaccurate.
13. On point a), on 11 March 2020 the business was not on the rating list. So the Council could not award a grant on that basis.
14. On point b), there are differing accounts of whether Mr X made matters clear to the Council before 12 March 2020. I note Mr X’s arguments that he telephoned the Council and that he paid the council tax. However, even if we were to accept Mr X telephoned the Council, that would not in itself make clear what was said. Whether the Council had reason to believe the rating list was wrong would depend on what precisely was said about the nature of the holiday letting.
15. I also note Mr X did not escalate matters when the council tax bill did not change after 2016. I understand Mr X did not think it necessary to follow up his telephone call in writing the first time, but if the same apparent problem was repeated the next year and thereafter, it would have seemed prudent to do something more than an annual telephone call. I say this not to criticise Mr X but to point out the lack of any supporting written record that might show the Council had reason to believe the rating list was wrong before 11 March 2020.
16. Overall, it seems unlikely we would be able to reach a clear enough view now about whether and when Mr X telephoned the Council and about whether the content of any such calls gave the Council reason to believe the rating list was inaccurate. So I shall not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because investigation is unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman