Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to pay her a Small Business Grant because she did not provide an email address causing financial difficulties. This insistence on an email address and online application is fault as it was not a requirement of the scheme and is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to pay her a Small Business Grant just because she did not provide an email address.
2. She says this has caused significant 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. 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”.
5. 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

6. 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

The Small Business Grant Fund

7. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. These included the Small Business Grant Fund (SBGF).
8. To receive funding from the SBGF a business had to be in receipt of small business rate relief (SBRR) (or rural rates relief) on 11 March 2020. Eligible businesses would receive a grant of £10,000.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

9. The Ombudsman publishes a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction. We issued an addendum in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19”. The following points are relevant in this case.

• Being service-user focused means responding to service user’s needs flexibly and dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances;
• In terms of being service user focused good administrative practice means understanding the individual circumstance of a case and not falling back on “blanket policies”;
• The additional COVID-19 guidance states even where national rule changes allow raised thresholds for action, councils should ensure it properly considers the individual circumstances of each case.

Key facts

10. The Council wrote to Ms X on 1 May 2020 saying she appeared to qualify for the SBGF and signposting her to the online application process. Ms X says that she tried to complete the online application but she was unable to submit it because she didn’t include an email address.
11. Ms X wrote to the Council on 17 August. Ms X says that she submitted all the information required by the online application process except for the email address. The Council received this information on 19 August. The Council says the information provided by Ms X was not complete as it did not include a statement regarding State Aid or the data protection fair processing statement.
12. The Council declined to make a payment based on the information Ms X submitted by post. In her covering letter Ms X explained she had been unable to make a claim online as she did not have an email address that she wished to use. It says it did attempt to resolve the situation by telephoning Ms X but was unable to speak with her.
13. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council on 10 October 2020. She complained she was unable to make an online application and so she submitted a written application which the Council refused to accept. Ms X said she had not seen any guidance to suggest an email address was an essential requirement for eligibility of the SBGF. She said she was relying on the grant to help her financially.
14. The Council responded on 28 October. It said it had a statutory duty to adhere to the strict government guidance in relation to administering the SBGF. It said that all applications had to be submitted via the Council’s website and it could not accept applications by any other method. It said it had no other businesses that had any issues in completing the application online.
15. Ms X contacted the Council again on 9 November requesting the Council escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaint process. Ms X stated she was eligible for the SBGF, could not use the online application process, that the purpose of the grant was not to restrict access to online users only and that before the closing date the Council had all relevant details in order to make the payment.
16. The Council’s response dated 8 December confirmed Ms X’s business was eligible for the SBGF which was why it sent a letter in April. It said the criteria surrounding the claims process required customers to submit their details electronically for audit purposes. It says it noted she was unable to submit her application electronically but this would not have precluded her from asking a family member or representative to submit a claim on her behalf. It said the position on her claim remained the same.
17. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage three. The Council explained that it was required to design a process to satisfy itself in terms of pre and post assurance and reporting requirements. It said it designed the process as online to ensure efficiency in handling applications.
18. Responding to Ms X’s point that she did not have an email address and that for security reasons she would not use someone’s email account the Council said it was just offering a suggestion when saying to use someone else’s email. It said while it appreciated she did not want to involve a third party in her application, this was only one suggestion and she also had the option to set up her own email for the purpose of completing the online application.
19. Ms X asked why the audit/electronic issues were not resolved as a result of her providing the information in writing before the scheme closed. The Council responded saying all applications were required online and while her application was submitted within the timeframe it could not be processed as it was not submitted in the correct format.
20. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, and continued failure to pay the SBGF, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

21. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that Ms X was eligible for the SBGF but the Council did not pay it to her because she failed to submit an online application. I consider this is fault.
22. The SBGF was an entitlement and as such it was not necessary to make an application in order to be eligible. The government produced guidance for councils regarding the eligibility criteria and administration of the grants. There is nothing in the guidance which required the qualifying business to provide an email address. The Council decided it would require an email address and the basis for this seems to be administrative convenience. I note the Council’s comments that subsequent government grant schemes require applicants to provide an email address but this was not a requirement at the time Ms X applied for the SBGF.
23. In response to my question why it only allowed online applications, the Council says that it considered it very unlikely that any business would be digitally excluded to the extent that it would be unable to provide either an existing or new email address it could use. It said that it that it has supported around 2,000 businesses to date and Ms X is the only person unable to provide an email address. It says Ms X seemed to suggest it was her preference not to provide an email address rather than it being an issue of digital exclusion.
24. It is clear the Council was only prepared to accept online applications and that it was not prepared to consider applications made in any other format. While I acknowledge the Council had to process applications in a short timescale, by its own admission, Ms X is the only person to raise this as an issue and so it would not have been too onerous for the Council to accept her written, postal application for a grant she was clearly entitled to receive.
25. The Council’s failure to use its discretion and accept Ms X’s written application goes against the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice. One of these principles is to be service user focused and to understand the individual circumstances of a case. There is no evidence the Council tried to understand why Ms X did not want to provide an email address and simply repeated that she must apply online. There is no evidence of any individual consideration of Ms X’s circumstances and this could be considered to be the Council fettering its discretion.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of the fault in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

• Apologise to Ms X;
• Pay Ms X £10,000 which is the amount she was entitled to and should have received; and
• Pay Ms X £200 to recognise her distress and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman