Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mr X a business grant. Investigation is unlikely to find any fault by the Council but for which Mr X would have been eligible for a grant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that fault by the Council meant he did not receive a small business grant. He reports not having the £10,000 grant exacerbated the business’ financial problems related to 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, or the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered copy correspondence that the Council supplied and information about the business premises on the website of the Valuation Office Agency. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

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 those businesses.
6. 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 (SBRR).
7. Government guidance 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. The small business grant scheme closed in August 2020.
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.
9. In September 2020 Mr X asked the Council about getting a small business grant. The Council replied the scheme had closed on 28 August so Mr X could not apply. Mr X argued he could not have applied sooner because he alleged the Council delayed between June and September resolving his eligibility for SBRR, which he needed to know about because that was relevant to eligibility for a grant.
10. However, on my understanding of the evidence, Mr X would not have been eligible for a grant even had he applied before 28 August. This is because eligibility depended on the situation on 11 March 2020, as paragraph 6 explained.
11. Mr X’s business property was previously one premises that was too large for SBRR. In 2019 it was divided into several smaller premises. However, the Council and VOA were not told of the change at that time. Mr X continued paying rates for the old premises. So, on 11 March 2020, the rating list still contained the old details. In April 2020 the occupant of one of the new premises contacted the Council asking about registering for business rates. Mr X contacted the Council on 30 June about having the rates bills corrected for the premises where he still paid the rates.
12. The VOA later changed the rating list to replace the old details with details of the new premises. It backdated the change to 2019.
13. The Council could only award a small business grant if:
1. on 11 March 2020, the premises were on the rating list and receiving small business rates relief 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.
14. On point a), on 11 March 2020 the premises as they currently exist were not on the rating list and were not receiving SBRR. So the Council could not award a grant on that basis.
15. On point b), there is no evidence that on 11 March 2020 the Council knew the ratings list was wrong in respect of the premises. The evidence suggests the Council first had a suggestion of that in April 2020 and had information from Mr X about it on 30 June 2020. Therefore the Council could not have awarded a grant under point b) either. As I have explained, the later backdated changes to the rating list did not make the premises eligible for a grant.
16. For these reasons, even if Mr X had applied before 28 August, I do not consider he would have received a grant. In that context, there is nothing significant to be gained from investigating whether any possible fault by the Council prevented Mr X applying before 28 August.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X would not have been entitled to a grant even if he had applied on time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman