Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a small business grant. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a £10,000 grant under the government’s small business grant fund (SBGF). He says that as a result of the COVID-19 national lockdown his business is struggling.

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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I reviewed Mr X’s correspondence with the Council about his application and appeal. I shared my draft decision with Mr X’s representative and invited their comments.

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 them. 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.
6. Mr X applied for a grant under the SBGF but the Council refused his application. This was because it was not satisfied the information he provided showed that on 11 March 2020 he had been occupying the business premises in question.
7. Mr X provided further information in support of his application but the Council told him it did not affect its decision. He then appealed. A senior officer considered Mr X’s appeal but agreed the information Mr X provided was not sufficient to show he met the criteria for a grant.
8. While Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. The initial officer considered the information Mr X provided and the Council followed the correct procedure in determining his appeal. The Council has explained the reasons for its decision and it is not for the Ombudsman to say the Council should have given more weight to Mr X’s evidence or that it must overlook its concerns and award him a grant.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman