Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Miss Y’s application for a business grant. This is because any investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council refused to give Miss Y a £10,000 business grant. Miss Y reports the lack of a grant worsened her business’ financial difficulties from being unable to trade during the Government’s COVID-19 lockdown.

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 considered the information Mr X provided, copy correspondence the Council provided and the relevant Government guidance. I also looked at information about the relevant properties 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

The small business grants scheme

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 those businesses. A business was eligible for a small business grant if, on 11 March 2020, it was on the business rating list and eligible for small business rates relief.
7. Government guidance to councils 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.
8. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list and decides if a business is liable for business rates and, if so, its rateable value.

Miss Y’s grant application

9. In 2019 a business address that was on the rating list as one property was divided into two properties. Miss Y’s business moved into one of those properties. I understand the Council and VOA were unaware of that change at the time. So, on 11 March 2020, the relevant date for small business grant eligibility, the rating list still contained the old details showing one property.
10. In July 2020, the VOA, having learned of the change, removed the old listing and added the two new properties to the rating list, backdating the change to 2019. Miss Y then applied for a small business grant. The Council refused the grant, saying it had been unaware on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate for the relevant address. Miss Y has not suggested the Council did know about the change by 11 March 2020. Rather she argues there was an oversight until she contacted the VOA after 11 March 2020.

My analysis

11. As I explained above, the Council could only award a small business 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 key 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.
12. On point a), on 11 March 2020 Miss Y’s premises was not on the rating list. So the Council could not award a grant on that basis.
13. On point b), the evidence suggests that on 11 March 2020 the Council did not yet know the ratings list was wrong. So the Council could not award a grant on that basis either.
14. The later change to the rating list and the backdating of that change did not make the business eligible for a grant, as paragraph 7 explained.
15. The Council’s refusal to pay a grant was based on the government’s guidance and the information the Council had at the relevant time. So that decision was properly reached. Therefore, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the decision. So I shall not fault the Council for not awarding a grant.
16. Mr X and Miss Y argue that this Council and a neighbouring Council gave grants to other businesses in the same circumstances as Miss Y’s. My role is to consider the complaint about Miss Y not getting a grant. The evidence suggests there was no fault in the Council refusing Miss Y a grant. In that context, what might have happened to other businesses is not directly relevant to my decision on Miss Y’s complaint. So I need not consider whether the other businesses’ circumstances were indeed identical (for example in whether or when properties were divided, when the councils knew of any changes, the types of grant applied for and so on) or whether anyone else might have received a grant in error.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the evidence suggests the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman