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 it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council about the Council’s handling of his application for a £10,000 grant from the Government’s Small Business Grant Fund (SBGF). He also complains about its decision not to award him a grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

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.
6. 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.
7. Since February 2020 Mr X has rented an office in one part of a business premises which appears on the rating list. He says his landlord advised he would receive a bill for business rates but his office is not separately listed and his landlord retains liability for the premises as a whole. Mr X is not therefore a business rates payer in his own right and does not receive business rates relief. But Mr X was unaware of this and contacted the Council in April 2020 to query the position. He did not hear from the Council so he applied for a grant under the SBGF.
8. The Council asked Mr X for further information about the premises and contacted the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which manages the rating list, to ask whether it had received an application to split the premises into separate units. The VOA confirmed it had not, so the Council declined to award Mr X a grant. This was because the premises was not separately listed on the rating list, Mr X was not liable for busines rates for it and did not receive the relevant reliefs.
9. Mr X challenged the Council’s decision and suggested the rating list was inaccurate. But the VOA has declined to alter the list and the Government’s guidance clearly states:

“38. 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.

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

10. Any retrospective changes would not therefore affect the Council’s decision.
11. The Council has a limited discretion to award grants “In cases where it was factually clear to the Local Authority on the 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate on that date…” but this does not apply in Mr X’s case. This is because Mr X’s first contact with the Council was in April 2020 and there was no application to alter the rating list prior to 11 March.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman