Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has refused his application for a small business grant.

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 it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (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 considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

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. Businesses in receipt of Small Business Rates Relief (SBRR) or Rural Rates Relief (RRR) as of 11 March 2020 were eligible for a payment of £10,000.
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, do not entitle a business to a grant. A council can make an exception if, on 11 March, it already had good reason to believe the list was inaccurate for a particular address or business.
9. Mr X applied to the Council for a small business grant. The Council rejected Mr X’s application because his business was not on the rating list on 11 March. It could not therefore be eligible for SBRR or RRR and the grant of £10,000. Mr X says the Council delayed dealing with his application which meant he missed out on the grant.
10. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. But we are not an appeal body and cannot criticise a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way it has been reached. The Council has considered Mr X’s application and has decided he does not meet the criteria for a grant. This is a decision it was entitled to reach. It has explained its decision to Mr X with reference to the relevant guidance. The information I have seen shows Mr X did not apply for SBRR until September. It therefore follows he could not have been in receipt of SBRR on 11 March. There is no evidence the Council already had on 11 March good reason to believe the rating list was wrong. It is for these reasons Mr X was not eligible for the grant and any delay by the Council is not relevant to his eligibility. I have not seen any fault in how the Council reached its decision not to award a grant. It is not therefore a decision we can question.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman