Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award a business grant. We have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council refused his application for a Covid-19-related small business grant. He says this had a massive impact on cash flow, causing upset and distress. He wants the Council to pay him the grant he believes he is 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 many 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X, a copy of his correspondence with the Council and the relevant guidance.

Back to top

What I found

5. 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. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced guidance to help councils manage the grants.
6. The guidance explains that businesses receiving Small Business Rates Relief (SBRR) or Rural Rates Relief (RRR) as of 11 March 2020, were eligible for a payment of £10,000. The guidance explains there will be one grant paid to eligible recipients per hereditament (property). The property’s ratepayer on 11 March 2020 will receive the grant.
7. The Council says Mr X owns several business properties which he lets. He also has different property let businesses, including company A and company B.
8. When a business uses more than one property it will continue to get existing rate relief on the first property for 12 months. SBRR will still apply on the first property after 12 months if none of the other properties have a rateable value above £2,899. And the total rateable value of all properties is less than £20,000
9. The Council confirms both companies were liable for business rates. But, they did not meet the eligibility criteria for SBRR as they were liable for multiple properties, one of which has a rateable value above £2,899.
10. Mr X contacted the Council for company A, requesting a grant application form and providing a copy of its rates bill. The Council confirmed company A did not qualify for a grant because of the reasons stated in paragraph 8 above. It provided a copy of the Government guidance on the grant scheme. Following further correspondence, the Council provided company A with a link to the Valuation Office, if Mr X wanted to challenge the rateable value.
11. In June, company B contacted the Council confirming they had leased the property in question from the 2 March 2020, and were occupying the property for storage. In July, company B provided the Council with a copy of registration for business rates backdated to 2 March 2020. The Council asked company B to provide more evidence that it was the leaseholder on 2 March. It asked for any of the following:
• pre contract correspondence from company A to company B evidencing the date the lease was signed
• documentation to show company B was paying utility bills
• documentation to show insurance cover at the address
• proof of payment of rent as set out in the lease
12. Mr X told the Council company B could not provide utility or insurance bills as the building is owned by company A and these costs are included in the rental price. He provided payment confirmation but advised he had been lenient with timescales to help struggling businesses.
13. In July, the Council advised Mr X it considered the retrospective lease was insufficient proof that company B was occupying the address on 2 March 2020. The further evidence he had provided of rent payments showed unidentified payments from an unnamed bank account to the landlord and was not considered sufficient proof of the date of occupation. Mr X provided confirmation of the name of the bank account which made the rent payment.
14. In August, the Council confirmed to Mr X it believes company A was the occupier of the premises on 2 March 2020 because:
• the lease for company B was drawn up retrospectively
• Mr X cannot provide any correspondence dated before the lease being made confirming company B occupied the property on 2 March.
15. It advised that if Mr X could provide further evidence it would reconsider the grant application.
16. In September, Mr X told the Council he would a provide a statutory declaration or statement of truth prepared by ‘a lawyer’. He asked which it would prefer.
17. The Council replied stating the Government withdrew the grant scheme at the end of August and it cannot accept further applications or evidence to support applications.

Assessment

18. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way it has been reached.
19. The Council considered Mr X’s application and, based on the information it had at the time, decided company B did not meet the criteria for a grant. It asked for more evidence that company B was occupying the property on 2 March to support the application. Unfortunately, Mr X could not provide evidence which met the Council’s requirements.
20. In response to my enquiries, the Council has confirmed that liability for SBRR for the property is held for company B from the end of July 2020. It says it has verifiable evidence that company B held the lease from this time.
21. This is a decision it was entitled to reach. Mr X has not provided me with any information which suggests the Council’s decision was wrong. Without evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, it is not one the Ombudsman can question. We will not therefore investigate.
22. The Council is entitled to seek supporting evidence if it has doubts about whether a company was liable for SBRR on a specific date. It is unfortunate that Mr X could not provide the information sought before the Government withdrew the grant funding, however this does not mean the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because from the information I have seen, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault in the process followed by the Council in processing the grant application for company B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman