Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to refuse Mrs X a COVID-19 business grant.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to award a COVID-19 business grant on the grounds she had not provided sufficient evidence to show the business premises were occupied on 11 March 2020.
2. She said the refusal added to the financial hardship caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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. 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)
5. 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”.
6. 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

7. I considered:
• the information provided by Mrs X and the Council; and
• relevant Government guidance, as set out below.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Grant Funding Schemes

9. 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).
10. Funding was payable to the person recorded as the ratepayer on 11 March 2020. However, where a council had reason to believe the information it held about the ratepayer on 11 March was inaccurate, it could withhold or recover the grant and take reasonable steps to identify the correct ratepayer.
11. A council had to ignore any changes to the rating list after 11 March, including backdated changes. However, where it was factually clear to a council on 11 March that the rating list was inaccurate on that date, it could withhold the grant and/or award the grant based on its view of who would have been entitled to the grant had the list been accurate.

Small Business Grant

12. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, received Small Business Rates Relief (“SBRR”) were able to apply for a payment of £10,000.
13. Eligibility for SBRR is subject to s43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This says the rate applies to occupied businesses.

Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant

14. Businesses which, on 11 March 2020, received the Expanded Retail Discount may be eligible for a grant between £10,000 and £25,000. Government guidance makes clear the Expanded Retail Discount applies to occupied businesses that are mainly used for retail, hospitality or leisure.

What happened

15. Mrs X contacted the Council about a business grant on 28 May 2020. She told it she had occupied business premises since September 2019.
16. The premises were on the Council’s record for business rates but it was not aware Mrs X was the party liable for paying the business rates prior to May 2020. Therefore, it asked her to provide evidence the business was occupying the premises on 11 March 2020, the relevant date for awarding a grant.
17. Mrs X provided some of the evidence the Council asked for in June and July 2020. However, the Council decided this was not sufficient to show the business was occupying the premises on 11 March. It wrote to her in September refusing a grant on the basis she had provided insufficient evidence.
18. In early October, Mrs X provided some bank statements and asked the Council to reconsider its decision. A Council officer spoke to Mrs X about a week later and emailed afterwards to confirm that much of the evidence provided did not show the business was trading and set out the further evidence needed. Mrs X provided further documents in October 2020, included business receipts and utility bills for January to March 2020.
19. The Council wrote to Mrs X again on 20 October 2020. It said Mrs X had not provided the evidence it asked for in its previous email. It set out again the evidence she needed to send it and asked her to clarify an item on one of the bank statements. Mrs X did not respond and on 11 November 2020 the Council reconsidered its decision on the basis of the information it already had. It wrote to Mrs X refusing a grant on the basis she had not provided sufficient information to show the business was occupying the premises on 11 March 2020.
20. Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome and complained to us.
21. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided copies of the evidence Mrs X had sent it and all communications about the grant. It said:
• because it was not aware Mrs X’s business was occupying the premises it needed her to provide evidence of occupation on 11 March 2020;
• although she provided a copy of her lease, this was not sufficient to prove occupation because those holding a lease do not always occupy the premises;
• although Mrs X provided copies of utility bills, these were in the name of a limited company and this was not the business name Mrs X had given it. On checking, it found the limited company named had been dissolved in September 2019. Grants were not payable to dissolved companies;
• it had twice requested specific information from Mrs X to show occupancy (the second occasion being the letter dated 20 October 2020 referred to at paragraph 17) but although some of this was provided, a number of items were outstanding and a query about the rent payments was not answered.

My findings

22. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. I must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If there was no fault in the decision making process, I cannot comment on the decision itself.
23. The business premises were on the ratings list but there was a question about whether the Council’s records showed the correct ratepayer. It had discretion to award a grant to Mrs X, even though she was not named as the ratepayer at that date, if she could show she was occupying the premises on 11 March 2020. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Council to make enquiries about whether the business was occupying the premises on that date.
24. It made a number of requests for information and listed more than once the evidence it needed to see. Mrs X provided some of that information but there were some significant gaps, as the Council set out in its email on 20 October 2020. I cannot see that it specifically asked her about the business name shown on the utility bills but I am satisfied that it did give Mrs X a number of opportunities to provide relevant evidence to support her application for a grant between June and November 2020. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman