Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to increase a business grant. It is unlikely investigation would find any fault by the Council but for which the Council would have increased the grant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not increase his business’ grant from £10,000 to £25,000 when his property’s rateable value increased. Mr X says the lack of the extra funding worsened his business’ financial difficulties from being unable to run normally during the COVID-19 restrictions.

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, or the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided and information on the Valuation Office Agency about his business’ rateable value. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The retail, hospitality and leisure grant scheme

5. In March 2020, the government created a scheme for councils to pay grants to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This was because the Covid-19 restrictions affected so many of those businesses.
6. A business’ right to a grant depended on its being on the business rating list on 11 March 2020 and meeting certain other criteria. The grant was £10,000 for a business whose property had a rateable value of up to £15,000 on 11 March 2020 or £25,000 where the rateable value was over £15,000 and less than £51,000 on 11 March 2020.
7. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list and decides if a business is liable for business rates and, if so, its rateable value. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the VOA.
8. Government guidance for councils said:

‘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.

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

9. A council could only make an exception if it was ‘factually clear’ to the Council on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate. (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Small Business Grant Fund and Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund: Guidance for Local Authorities)

Mr X’s grant

10. On 11 March 2020 (and until after September 2020) the VOA rating list gave Mr X’s business property a rateable value of below £15,000. So the Council paid Mr X a £10,000 grant.
11. Mr X reports in June 2020 he realised the rateable value might be wrong, as it did not seem to take account of recent changes to the property, so he contacted the VOA. After September 2020 (I am not being more specific, to protect Mr X’s anonymity) the VOA revalued the property at above £15,000 but below £51,000. It backdated the change to before 11 March 2020.
12. Meanwhile, the government had closed the retail, hospitality and leisure grant scheme on 30 September 2020. Mr X argued his new, backdated rateable value should entitle him to the £25,000 grant, so he asked the Council for the £15,000 difference. The Council refused, as the grants scheme had closed. Later, responding to Mr X’s formal complaint about this, the Council said, ‘If the alteration [to the rateable value] had been received before the scheme ended, you would have been able to receive the higher grant award and the council would have happily paid the difference.’ Mr X is aggrieved at not receiving the higher amount.

My analysis

13. I note what the Council told Mr X. However, I do not consider the Council could have increased Mr X’s grant even if the revaluation had happened by 30 September 2020. This is because the government’s guidance that I quoted above is clear that grant payments depended on what the rating list said on 11 March 2020 and that rating list changes after then, including changes to rateable value, could not be considered for grant purposes, even if a change was backdated to before 11 March 2020.
14. There is no evidence the Council knew on 11 March 2020 the rateable value was wrong. Indeed, Mr X indicates he himself did not know the rating list might be wrong until after then.
15. Therefore I do not believe Mr X could have received a larger grant, regardless of how long the VOA took to revalue his property and regardless of when the grants scheme closed. It follows that I do not find fault with the Council’s refusal to increase the payment.
16. I note the Council’s complaint response appears inaccurate on this point. However, as that response was well after the relevant events and could not have affected those events, I do not consider any inaccuracy caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant further action by the Ombudsman. The key point is the Council could not have paid a larger amount, irrespective of what the Council later said on that point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because there was no fault but for which Mr X would have received a larger grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman