Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of business grants available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to award his business a grant available due to COVID-19. Mr X is unhappy the Council failed to contact individual businesses about the support available. Mr X says that because of this his business has missed out on a £10,000 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. 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

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. 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.
7. 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.
8. In May 2020, the Government announced extra funding aimed at small and micro businesses not eligible for the small business grants. Councils were responsible for delivering grants to eligible businesses. Councils could pay grants of £25,000, £10,000 or any amount under £10,000. The Government asked councils to prioritise certain businesses, including those in shared offices or flexible workspaces. Guidance produced by the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, said each council should have its own discretionary grants policy and should publish details on its website.

What happened

9. In April 2020, Mr X contacted the Council about the grants available to small businesses. The Council told Mr X he was not eligible. This was because Mr X’s business was not registered for business rates and he was not therefore in receipt of SBRR or RRR.
10. Mr X’s landlord provided the Council with information about Mr X’s business, and in September 2020, Mr X received a bill for business rates. Mr X contacted the Council, and it confirmed its original decision he was not eligible for the small business grant – for the reasons it had already given. The Council also said the deadline for applying for a discretionary grant had passed. It said that as Mr X’s business was based in a ‘shared space’ he would have qualified for a discretionary grant.
11. Mr X is unhappy because he says the Council did not tell him about the discretionary grant scheme. In its response to his complaint, the Council said the scheme was heavily publicised on its website. It said that many businesses were paid grants while other applications were refused because they did not meet the Council’s published criteria. The Council said the responsibility for applying for a grant rested with individuals.

Assessment

12. Mr X’s business was not in receipt of SBRR or RRR on 11 March 2020. There is no evidence the Council knew the rating list was wrong on 11 March 2020. The Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a small business grant was therefore in line with the Government’s guidance. Without evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, it is not one we can question.
13. It was for individual councils to decide how to administer the discretionary grants scheme. It was for councils to decide when they would accept applications. This allowed them to use their limited funds to pay grants to struggling businesses as quickly as possible. The Council published details of its scheme on its website as the Government’s guidance required. I recognise Mr X is unhappy the Council did not write to him and other businesses about the discretionary grant. But there was no requirement for the Council to do this, and so an investigation would be unlikely to find the Council to be at fault. An investigation is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr 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