Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of a COVID-19 small business grant. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of a COVID-19 small business grant. He said the Council wrongly concluded his businesses premises were closed. He said he was trading but was open to the public by appointment only.

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. 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)
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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• The information Mr X and the Council provided;
• Relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Grant funding schemes

7. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Government introduced two grant schemes to support businesses. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published guidance for councils on how to apply these: “Grant Funding Schemes” (March 2020).
8. Funding is payable to the person recorded as the ratepayer in respect of the business on 11 March 2020. However, in cases where it was factually clear to the council on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate on that date, it has discretion to award the grant based on their view of who would have been entitled to it.

Small business grant

9. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, received Small Business Rates Relief (“SBRR”) may be eligible for a payment of £10,000.
10. Eligibility for SBRR is subject to s43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This says the rate applies to occupied businesses.

What happened

11. Mr X said he traded from business premises in the Council’s area from July 2017. In June 2020, he applied for a small business grant (SBG). The Council asked him to provide evidence that the business premises were occupied on 11 March 2020. Mr X provided documents, including a copy of his lease, bank statements, and utility bills.
12. The Council considered the documents provided and an officer visited the business premises. The officer took photos of a shop with its shutters down and the signage outside appeared to relate to a different business. The officer asked four different neighbours if they knew when the shop opened. The neighbours said they had not seen it open for at least nine months before the visit. Two neighbours said they had not seen the premises open in the previous two years.
13. In mid August 2020, the Council refused the grant on the grounds the business premises were not occupied.
14. Mr X appealed the decision in August 2020. He said the premises were occupied on 11 March and he could provide further documents to show this. He said he could send evidence of renovation work done in 2019, which would not have been carried out if the premises were unoccupied.
15. In October 2020, an officer in a different team reviewed the decision and upheld the original decision. The Council said the evidence Mr X provided was not sufficient to show the business was operating and trading from the premises on 11 March 2020. It said its visiting officer had spoken to neighbours, who said they had not seen the premises open in over 9 months.
16. Mr X complained to us. He said the business was trading throughout and there was a sign outside that said it was open “by appointment only”. This was because Mr X was concerned about contracting the COVID-19 virus and transmitting it to his family. There is no sign in the photos the Council took, which Mr X said may have been because was not securely fixed initially.
17. In response to our enquiries, the Council said that although the premises were on the rating list on 11 March 2020, Mr X was not listed as being the ratepayer. It said if there had been clear evidence Mr X was occupying the premises on 11 March 2020, it would have considered making him the ratepayer, which could have made him eligible for a grant. However, following enquiries, it was not satisfied he was occupying the premises at that time.
18. Mr X said the advice he received from his landlord when he took on the lease was that the Council would contact him if he needed to pay business rates. He relied on this advice and did not contact the Council about this. In 2020 a different person working for the landlord advised him he should register for business rates, which he did in April 2020.

My findings

19. I cannot question whether the Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr X disagrees with it. I must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
20. To be eligible for a small business grant, the business premises had to be on the business rating list on 11 March 2020, which it was. Funding is payable to the person recorded as the rate payer. However, Mr X was not listed as the person responsible for paying business rates at that date. The scheme allows some discretion to councils where they were aware, on 11 March 2020, that the list was factually inaccurate. There is no evidence to suggest the Council was aware of any inaccuracy in this case.
21. In addition, to qualify for a grant, the business premises had to be occupied. Mr X said the premises were occupied. The Council made enquiries about this, including requesting relevant documents and carrying out an inspection. It was not satisfied the premises were occupied, based on the level of the bills, the appearance of the premises on inspection and because neighbours said they had not seen the premises being used for some months before the application was made. These were reasonable enquiries for the Council to make. There is no fault in the way the Council considered this aspect and therefore I cannot comment on the conclusion it reached.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman