Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a business grant available due to COVID-19. 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 about the Council’s decision not to award a business grant available due to COVID-19.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. 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

5. The Government introduced the Local Restrictions Support Grant (Closed) scheme to help businesses required to close from November 2020 due to COVID-19. Eligible businesses were those mandated to close by the government and included non-essential retail, leisure, personal care, sports facilities, and hospitality businesses.
6. Mr X operates a facility which provides spaces local businesses can rent to use as office space. Mr X applied for a Local Restrictions Support Grant and said he could not operate his business. Mr X said the space was too small for social distancing and the Government was asking people to work from home. Mr X’s regular clients did not want to rent the space for part of the week which would have allowed it to operate safely. Mr X argued his business had effectively been forced to close.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s application and appeals but decided he did not qualify for the grant. The Council said it was only available for businesses which had been “mandated” to close by the Government. This did not apply to shared office spaces and so it could not pay him the grant.
8. I understand Mr X is disappointed by the Council’s decision. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot question decisions taken without fault. The Council has considered Mr X’s application and has decided he does not qualify for the Local Restrictions Grant (Closed). It has explained its decision to Mr X with reference to guidance from the Government. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it has reached its decision and so it is not one we can question. We will not therefore investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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