Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for funding under the government’s Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund (RHLGF).

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. (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 including his complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the Government’s guidance on the RHLGF and Expanded Retail Discount (ERD), shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. 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 them.
7. Under the RHLGF, businesses in England with a rateable value of less than £51,000 and that would have been in receipt of the ERD on 11 March 2020 were entitled to a cash grant.
8. A property that the Council treated as empty (for business rates purposes) on 11 March 2020 is not eligible for a grant. It is for the Council to decide if a property is empty for business rates purposes. The fact that someone has rented a property or is carrying out some activity there does not necessarily mean the property is occupied for business rates purposes.
9. Mr X took up a lease on a business premises in March 2020. He applied to the Council, which administered the scheme locally on the government’s behalf, for a grant under the RHLGF. The Council refused his application in May 2020 as it said Mr X was not registered as in occupation of the business premises on 11 March 2020.
10. Mr X appealed against the decision and complained to the Council about it. The Council discussed the application with him and visited his premises but explained its view remained that he was not eligible for a grant. It said the evidence it had seen did not show Mr X met the criteria; its response referred to:
• documentation from his landlord,
• returned post from the business premises address,
• a statement from Mr X himself in May 2020,
• the details of Mr X’s planning application,
• its inspection of the premises, and
• a statement from an employee/contractor on-site.
11. The Council invited Mr X to provide further information but decided the information he provided was not sufficient to show he qualified for ERD on 11 March 2020. It accepted Mr X may have taken on the lease for the premises in March 2020 and that the rateable value of the premises is less than £51,000 but said the evidence did not support Mr X’s assertion that he “occupied” it on 11 March. It therefore confirmed its decision that it would not award Mr X a grant.
12. The government’s guidance on ERD states:

“10. Properties that will benefit from the relief will be occupied hereditaments that are wholly or mainly being used:

a. as shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas and live music venues…

11. We consider shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas and live music venues to mean…

iii. Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of food and/or drink to visiting members of the public:

• Restaurants
• Takeaways…”

13. The Council’s responses show it considered the information provided by Mr X and that it reviewed its decision under both its appeal and complaints processes. Its decision that Mr X does not qualify for a grant is a matter of professional judgement and is in line with government guidance; there is no evidence of fault in how it reached its decision and I therefore see no basis for us to question it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman