Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to award him a government business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused his application for a discretionary grant for businesses struggling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. He is also unhappy the Council reported him for not registering his property for business rates.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and discussed it with him.

Back to top

What I found

5. In March 2020, the Government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of them.
6. A business’ right to a grant depends on its rateable value on the business rating list and its eligibility for certain business rate reliefs on 11 March 2020.
7. Mr X runs a business. He found out the government was offering grants to businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and contacted the Council about this. He was not eligible for a small business grant as his property was not registered for business rates, so he applied for a discretionary grant. The Council refused Mr X’s application for a discretionary grant because he could not evidence a 60% loss of income due to COVID-19 and the first national lockdown, which was one of the criteria under its scheme.
8. Mr X says the Council then reported him to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) for not paying business rates on his property. The VOA is part of HMRC and is the body which decides whether a property should appear on the rating list and, if so, its rateable value. The Council then collects business rates from those liable for them.
9. The Council has not confirmed whether it referred Mr X’s case to the VOA but the rating list shows his property has now been added and Mr X’s liability has been backdated to 2017. Whether or not the Council referred the matter to the VOA it was the VOA’s decision which resulted in the property being added to the list.
10. Mr X believes that because he now has to pay business rates for the property he should receive a small business grant but Government guidance is clear this is not the case. The grant scheme has now closed and the guidance confirms retrospective changes to the rating list cannot be taken into account in deciding eligibility for a grant. The only exception to this is where the council knew the rating list was inaccurate on 11 March 2020 and this does not apply in Mr X’s case. We could not therefore say that the Council’s actions have prevented Mr X from qualifying for the grant.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman