Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for funding under the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council wrongly refused her charity’s application for a grant under the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund (RHLGF). She says the charity has suffered a reduction in funding and believes it should be eligible for the £25,000 grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these.
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 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 Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

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.
7. The RHLGF ran during the first national lockdown in 2020 and meant that businesses in England that received Expanded Retail Discount on business rates (which covers retail, hospitality and leisure) on 11 March were eligible for a cash grant. Eligible businesses with a property that has a rateable value of between £15,000 to £25,000 received for a grant of £25,000.
8. 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.
9. Mrs X applied for a grant for her charity but the Council refused her application. This was because the charity was not liable for business rates on 11 March 2020 and did not receive Expanded Retail Discount.
10. Mrs X says the charity believed it received a 100% discretionary charitable exemption and that under the terms of its lease it should have been liable for business rates. She asked the Council to reconsider its decision but the decision did not change. The Council explained it is liable for business rates at the premises as the charity’s landlord and that the terms of the lease do not transfer liability to the charity. The charity is not therefore eligible for the grant.
11. Mrs X believes the Council’s decision is wrong but I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. The Council considered the information provided by Mrs X, including the terms of her lease, and its decision is a matter of professional judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman