Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his grant applications. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a grant under the Growth Support Kickstart Grant Scheme (GSKGS). He also complains he was advised to submit another application for funding which took further time and effort but was unsuccessful.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The GSKGS aims to help businesses to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is additional funding within the grant to help small businesses in tourism-related sectors to adapt their business as part of a Kickstarting Tourism package announced by the Government for businesses in tourist destinations.
7. The Council opened the GSKGS for applications in August 2020 and Mr X applied for the maximum funding of £3,000 for equipment for his business. The Council refused the application on the basis the equipment amounted to “capital” but Mr X disagrees with its decision. He says the Council did not explain in sufficient detail the reasons for refusal so he asked for a review of its decision.
8. A manager reviewed the decision not to award Mr X funding under the GSKGS and apologised for the Council’s delay and for not being clearer. But they upheld the decision not to award the grant as the equipment was not eligible under the scheme. They suggested Mr X could apply for other funding for the tourism sector so Mr X submitted an application for this, but the Council was unable to process his application as the fund had already awarded all the money available. Mr X was not happy with this as he had spent time and effort to complete the application.
9. The Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for the GSKGS is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. The Council considered the details of the equipment Mr X wished to purchase but deemed it ineligible under the scheme. The guidance and FAQ documents for the scheme make clear funding is for “minor items” rather than capital expenditure and it is not for us to say the Council’s decision that the equipment involved in this case meets the criteria when the Council considers it does not.
10. The manager reviewing Mr X’s application for the GSKGS suggested Mr X could apply for a tourism grant but offered no guarantee his application would be successful. It was not fault to advise Mr X he may apply for this funding but it is unclear whether funding had already been allocated by this point. If it had, the Council should have informed Mr X of this. But the Council has explained that if it receives further funding under the programme it will process additional applications and Mr X may benefit from this dependent on his position in the queue. We could not therefore say the matter caused him significant avoidable injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman