Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his application for the Expanded Retail Discount and a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant causing financial difficulties to his business. The Council refused the applications on the basis the business premises were not easily accessible to visiting members of the public. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused his application for a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant on the basis his business is not customer facing even though he is aware similar businesses in other areas have been awarded the grant.
2. Mr X says his business has suffered financial difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Business grants

6. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Government introduced two grant schemes to support businesses. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published guidance for councils on how to apply these: “Grant Funding Schemes” (March 2020).
7. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, received Small Business Rates Relief (“SBRR”) were eligible for a Small Business Grant of £10,000.
8. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, would have received the Expanded Retail Discount, were eligible for a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant (“RHL Grant”) of up to £25,000.

Expanded Retail Discount (the “Discount”)

9. In April 2020 MHCLG published “Business Rates, Expanded Retail Discount 2020/21: Coronavirus Response Local Authority Guidance”.
10. The Discount was available to premises wholly or mainly used for retail, hospitality or leisure.
11. The guidance listed the types of businesses that were eligible and stated that travel agents being used for the provision of services to visiting members of the public were eligible. It also stated that hereditaments that are not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public were excluded.

Discretionary grants

12. In May 2020, the Government introduced a discretionary grant scheme aimed at businesses ineligible for the earlier schemes. To support the introduction of this scheme the Government published guidance contained in: “Local Authorities Discretionary Grants Fund- guidance for local authorities”.
13. Under the scheme, councils could award a discretionary grant of £25,000, £10,000 or any sum under £10,000 to businesses which could not access other grant funding (other than the Job Retention Scheme). The Council had discretion over the amount of payment in each case.

Key facts

14. Mr X’s business was entered onto the rating list in August 2014 with a property description of “Offices and Premises”. The listing has not changed since that date.
15. Mr X’s business emailed the Council on 15 April 2020 saying it wanted to apply for the RHL Grant but was unable to complete the validation process on the Council’s website because the property description deemed the premises invalid for the RHL Grant.
16. The Council conducted an internet search and found an image showing the outside of the premises. It says this showed a commercial office building with restricted public access.
17. The Council received an email from Mr X’s business on 17 April which clarified it was a tour operator and so fell under the hospitality and leisure category. A further email was received on 21 May on behalf of Mr X from a trade organisation representative. She said while not directly public facing, Mr X’s business was a vital part of the leisure and hospitality supply chain which may not survive without financial assistance.
18. The Council says it was unable to determine whether or not the property was eligible for The Discount and the RHL Grant so it sent an email on 16 July saying that due to the property description, the business was excluded from the list of eligible property on its online portal. It asked the business to confirm whether the property was accessible by visiting members of the public as it held information from a third party suggesting it was not. The Council says it has not received any evidence from the business in response to this email.
19. The Council emailed Mr X on 18 August saying this was a response at stage two of the corporate complaints procedure. It stated the business was not entitled to The Discount or the RHL Grant because the property address is not accessible by visiting members of the public to purchase services.
20. The Council had further communication in September 2020 with Mr Z who also worked at the business. He contacted the Council saying it had received a demand for business rates even though the property had been sold on 3 July. The Council explained The Discount and RHL Grant was not awarded due to the property being listed as “offices and premises” and because it was not public facing.
21. In November 2020, Mr X provided the Council was an affidavit from a director of the business. The affidavit stated that the premises are regularly used by visiting members of the public to collect documents such as tickets, vouchers and travel cards in relation to package holidays. She stated the office is located on the 6th floor and there is a reception desk area to assist and guide visitors to the premises.
22. As Mr X’s business was not awarded the RHL Grant, he subsequently applied for, and was awarded, a discretionary grant of £10,000.

Analysis

23. Mr X complains the Council refused his application for a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant. Mr X has to be awarded The Discount in order to qualify for the RHL Grant. I will therefore focus on the decision relating to The Discount.
24. Government Guidance says hereditaments that are being used for the provision of services to visiting members of the public will benefit from The Discount. It specifically mentions travel agents as eligible. The Guidance also states that hereditaments that are not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public will not be eligible.
25. The Council accepts Mr X’s business was a travel agent and so in order to award The Discount it had to be satisfied that it was reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public. The Council took the view the business was not reasonably accessible and so refused The Discount. I have therefore considered the information the Council had to reach this view.
26. The information considered by the Council included:

• The ratings list description of the property
• Online mapping services showing the outside of the building
• An email from a trade organisation representative stating the business is not public facing
• The business website which does not give details of the premises as an address which members of the public can visit to purchase goods or services.

27. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative process. We do not make decisions on behalf of a council or provide a route of appeal against its decisions. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with the council’s decision.
28. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the issue of whether the premises were reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public. It has taken the view it was not and so The Discount was not awarded. I find no fault in how the Council reached this decision.
29. Mr X complained that other similar businesses have been awarded The Discount. I have not seen any evidence to show Mr X provided the Council with details of these companies or that the awards were made by this Council. Therefore I will not investigate this issue further as I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s case on its own merits and there is no evidence of fault in how it reached that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I will now to complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman