Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s administration of the Covid-19 Small Business Grants scheme. This is because the Council has confirmed it will now pay the grant to the complainant, and there is nothing else significant we could achieve by further investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr P.
2. Mr P says his business was eligible to receive the Covid-19 Small Business Grant of £10,000, but did not because of administrative errors by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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”.
4. 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’.
5. 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 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

6. I reviewed Mr P’s correspondence with the Council.
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr P runs a small business from a shared office building in the Council’s area. The business is eligible to receive Small Business Rates Relief (SBRR), but due to an administrative error by the business’s agent, it was not on the rating list at the point the Small Business Grants scheme was announced.
9. Mr P contacted the Council in May 2020 to discuss this. After providing evidence, the Council accepted Mr P’s business was eligible for SBRR and, consequently, the Small Business Grant.
10. Between June and September, there was a series of correspondence between Mr P and the Council. However, on 2 October, the Council informed Mr P the Government had now closed the scheme and no more payments were possible.
11. Mr P made a formal complaint to the Council, criticising it for delays in its correspondence with him, the fact it had not informed him of the impending deadline, and that errors with the Council’s own online systems had meant he could not access the grant money. The Council’s response pointed to the fact Mr P’s business had not been registered for business rates on 11 March, and the steps the Council had needed to take to verify its eligibility.
12. On 9 October, Mr P referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Legislative background

Covid-19

13. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic the Government introduced support for businesses, including the small business grant fund and a discretionary grant fund.

Small Business Grant

14. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, received SBRR were able to apply for a payment of £10,000.
15. Funding was payable to the person recorded as the ratepayer in respect of the business on 11 March 2020. However, where it was factually clear to the council on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate on that date, it had discretion to award the grant based on their view of who would have been entitled to it.

Back to top

Analysis

16. At the beginning of my investigation, I wrote to the Council and asked it to confirm, among other things, whether Mr P’s business had been eligible for the Small Business Grant; and what stage the Council had reached in processing the grant, at the point the scheme had ended.
17. In its response, the Council confirmed the business was eligible. It also said the grant money had been awarded to the business’s rates account before the scheme ended on 30 September, but because of a technical problem, the business had not been able to access it.
18. The Council said it had discussed Mr P’s situation with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (the Government department responsible for the scheme). Although it originally told the Council it could not pay any grant after 30 September, the Department had now told the Council it could use other funds to pay the grant. Therefore, it was now in the process of arranging a payment of £10,000 to Mr P’s business.
19. It remains unclear precisely what happened here. Both Mr P and the Council have referred to a technical problem, which affected Mr P’s use of the Council’s online system for payment of the grant. On the evidence available to me, I cannot say what was the cause of this problem, or whether it represents fault by the Council.
20.  
21. However, as the Council is now making the payment anyway, I do not consider it would be proportionate to investigate this any further. Even if the Council was at fault here, the significant injustice this caused was that the business missed out on the grant money. This has now been completely remedied. And, as the scheme has now ended, there would be no value to any recommendation for the Council to improve its system for processing grants.
22. Taking this together, I am satisfied there is nothing significant to be gained by further investigation here.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman