Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making Mr X the named business ratepayer for a property and therefore not paying him some COVID-19-related business grants. This is mainly because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision on the main point at issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not make his business the business ratepayer for the premises he occupies. This meant Mr X did not receive COVID-19-related business grants for which business ratepayers could be eligible. Mr X says this worsened the business’ financial problems.

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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In March 2020, the Government created schemes for councils to pay grants to some small businesses and retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Not all such businesses were eligible. Government guidance said these grants could only go to the person who the Council’s records showed was the ratepayer on 11 March 2020. Where the Council had reason to believe that information was inaccurate, it could seek to identify and pay the correct ratepayer.
7. Where a business property is rented out, it is not necessarily straightforward whether the landlord or the business occupying the property should be the ratepayer. It depends on various factors and is for the Council to judge in each case. The Council will not change the named ratepayer just because the occupier (or anyone else) asks it.
8. Here, when Mr X’s business moved into the property, the landlord was already the named ratepayer on the Council’s records. Mr X had not queried that when taking occupancy. The landlord remained listed as the ratepayer on 11 March 2020. Mr X queried the position later, when he learned he would not get one of these grants unless he was the named ratepayer. The Council then sought more information about the nature of Mr X’s occupancy, including the lease. It gave weight to the lease saying the landlord, not Mr X, would be responsible for business rates and other bills, such as utility bills. The Council regarded that as showing the landlord retained ‘paramount control’ despite leasing the property. The degree of control someone has over a property is relevant to whether they are eligible to pay the rates. So the Council was entitled to take account of this.
9. The Council treated the landlord, not Mr X, as having paramount control and therefore being responsible for the rates as it would with a serviced office. Mr X says this property is not a serviced office. It is not key here whether the property actually is a serviced office in the usual understanding of that term. The point is the Council decided the nature of the arrangement between Mr X and the landlord meant the landlord, not Mr X, was properly the ratepayer, so the Council refused to put rates into Mr X’s name. That decision was for the Council, which reached it after consideration of relevant information. Therefore the Council properly reached that decision, so we cannot criticise the decision, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. Mr X says the Council gave different reasons at different times for refusing to make him the ratepayer and refusing the grant. However, the Council’s settled position is as set out above. As I cannot criticise that position, it would be disproportionate to investigate whether the Council incorrectly gave other reasons.
11. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
12. I note that, while the Council decided Mr X was not eligible for any grants that could only be paid to the ratepayer, the Council advised Mr X he could apply to its discretionary grant scheme instead. That scheme would have had its own eligibility criteria and might well only have awarded smaller grants than the other schemes, but that does not mean the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision on the central point of whether to treat Mr X as the ratepayer.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman