Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Government grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr X and Mr Y, complain about the Council’s decision to refuse their application for a small business grant from the Government. They believe they have missed out on a £10,000 grant they are entitled to.

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 provider 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 reviewed the information provided by Mr X and Mr Y’s representative, Mr Z. I shared my draft decision with Mr Z and invited his 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. 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.
8. Mr X and Mr Y signed a lease for their current business premises in December 2019. The property was not on the rating list, which is maintained by the Valuation Office Agency, so Mr X and Mr Y were not liable for business rates and did not receive small business rates relief on 11 March 2020. They applied to the Council for a small business grant after 11 March 2020 but the Council refused their application. This was because it was not aware on 11 March 2020 that the property needed to be brought onto the rating list.
9. The property has since been brought onto the rating list and the Council has made Mr X and Mr Y liable for business rates, backdated to December 2019. Mr X and Mr Y disagree with the Council’s decision to refuse their application and believe the Council should use its discretion to award them the £10,000 grant.

Assessment

10. Guidance issued by the Government for the small business grant fund scheme clearly states:

“42. Any changes to the rating list (rateable value or to the hereditament) after the 11 March 2020 including changes which have been backdated to this date should be ignored for the purposes of eligibility.

43. Local Authorities are not required to adjust, pay or recover grants where the rating list is subsequently amended retrospectively to the 11 March 2020.”

11. Exceptions to the above include:

“44. In cases where it was factually clear to the Local Authority on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate on that date, Local Authorities may withhold the grant and/or award the grant based on their view of who would have been entitled to the grant had the list been accurate.

45. This is entirely at the discretion of the Local Authority and only intended to prevent manifest errors.”

12. The complainants’ first contact with the Council about this matter was after 11 March 2020 and it was not therefore factually clear to it that the rating list was inaccurate on this date. The Council’s decision is therefore in line with the guidance. It has now backdated Mr X and Mr Y’s liability for business rates but as set out at point 42 of the guidance, quoted above, this does not entitle them to a grant.
13. While Mr X and Mr Y believe the Council can and should use its discretion in their case the Council has clearly explained the reasons it refused Mr X and Mr Y’s application and it is not for us to question the ‘merits’ of its decision without evidence of fault in the way it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman