Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a business grant. He said the decision badly affected him because he was struggling to run his business during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman found there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a small business grant under a government scheme set up to help businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Mr X said the decision badly affected him, because he is registered blind and was already struggling to run his business during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
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”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Small Business Grant Fund

8. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government set up schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. One of those schemes was the Small Business Grant Fund, which paid eligible businesses a grant of £10,000.
9. To be eligible for a small business grant (SBG), a business had to be in receipt of small business rate relief, or rural rates relief, on 11 March 2020.

Small Business Rate Relief

10. Small business rate relief (SBRR) is applied if business premises have a rateable value of less than £15,000 and, usually, if the business uses only one property. Business premises with a rateable value of less than £12,000 will pay no business rates.
11. The relief can only be paid on occupied premises. One of the tests to determine occupation is that premises must be in ‘actual occupation’ by the ratepayer. This means being used by the ratepayer in conduct of their business.

What happened

12. I have summarised below some of the key events relevant to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened.
13. A property agent told the Council Mr X was the new leaseholder of business premises in September 2016. The Council issued a business rates bill to Mr X in October.
14. Mr X contacted the Council in December, providing the name of the company trading from the premises. I shall refer to it as company A. Mr X told the Council company A should be the billing name. The Council asked for a copy of the lease for company A.
15. Mr X sent a lease to the Council showing himself as the landlord and company A as the tenant. The lease was signed by Mr X and company A.
16. The Council closed the business rates account it had opened in Mr X’s name in January 2017 and opened a new rates account for company A. It sent a closing bill to Mr X and an opening bill to company A. Both were returned to the Council as undelivered.
17. The rates bill the Council issued to Mr X remained unpaid. It passed the debt to enforcement agents, but they could not trace Mr X.
18. Company A applied for SBRR in March 2017. Company A’s premises’ rateable value was less than £12,000. The Council therefore waived the business rates bill it had earlier issued for company A.
19. Mr X applied for a SBG on 20 April 2020 for a company at the same address as company A.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X on 22 May 2020. It said the company name on his application did not match the name on the business rates account. It therefore asked Mr X to confirm the date he took occupation of the business premises and to provide his lease, utility bills, and three months’ bank statements. It also asked him to confirm whether company A traded from any other address.
21. Mr X sent the Council a bank statement, rent invoice, electricity bill, and a copy of his lease confirming he took over the premises in September 2016. He said it was the only address his business trades from. He confirmed the correct name for company A and said he tried to correct this online several times as the Council’s records are wrong.
22. The Council wrote to Mr X on 20 August. It said there was conflicting information on his account and asked Mr X to supply utility bills showing usage at the premises, suppliers’ invoices, and full bank statements for January, February, and March 2020. It also asked for a statement for the current month showing business transactions.
23. Mr X sent the Council an invoice for his telephone and internet, rent invoices, and further bank statements.
24. A Council officer visited company A’s premises in August and September 2020, but they could not gain access and saw no signs of activity.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X again on 28 September asking for further information. It asked why Mr X appeared to have sublet the premises without the landlord’s permission. It also asked why Mr X made a SBRR application in 2017 using a slightly different company name. It asked why his utility bills also showed this slightly different company name. The Council asked Mr X for bank statements from February and March 2020 showing rent payments. It asked him to respond by the end of the day.
26. Mr X told the Council he was the occupier and lease holder of the premises. He confirmed the correct name of his business but did not explain why the name he gave was slightly different on his SBRR application and his bills. He said if the Council spoke to the landlord they would confirm he has paid his rent. Mr X also said he is registered blind, so needs help with documents and did not appreciate the tight deadline. He said he would ask the bank for statements.
27. The Council again asked Mr X to explain the discrepancy in the company names he gave, and why different names were on the utility bills. The Council asked Mr X for his home address.
28. Mr X said he has not sublet the property. He said he has provided his lease agreement and confirmed the correct company name. He again did not explain the discrepancies or provide his home address but invited the Council to visit his premises.
29. The Council refused Mr X’s business grant application on 29 September. It said he was not eligible because he had provided insufficient evidence to show he was running a business on 11 March 2020.
30. Mr X complained on 29 September. He said he provided the evidence the Council asked for, including invoices for purchases, and clearly showed his business was trading during March. He said the Council was discriminating against a disabled person and the decision was unfair.
31. A Council officer visited company A’s premises again on 6 October. The officer rang the bell at the premises but there was no answer, and the officer could not gain access.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 8 October. It said it was obliged to ensure any business applying for a government grant was trading on 11 March 2020 (the date the scheme was announced). It asked all businesses for evidence of this in line with the government’s counter fraud guidance.
33. The Council did not consider the information Mr X supplied was enough to prove he was trading on 11 March. It said his evidence also raised questions about the information he provided previously on the name of the company and who was occupying the premises. After the grant scheme was announced, Mr X gave the Council a different company name which he had not given before.
34. The Council said the evidence Mr X gave does indicate he was in possession of the premises on 11 March but does not show he was occupying or trading from it. The Council therefore made Mr X liable for an empty rate charge.
35. The Council said it can only pay grants to businesses who prove they were occupied and trading on 11 March. As Mr X did not provide proof of this the Council cannot award him a grant.
36. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s complaint response. On 12 October he asked for an independent review at stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
37. The Council sent its final response on 15 January 2021. Its findings were:
• Mr X has been in possession of the premises since September 2016, so is liable for the rates.
• The bank statements Mr X provided are unnamed and do not confirm business use.
• Mr X has not provided any evidence to show his business was operating on 11 March 2020.
• The Council correctly refused Mr X’s grant application.
38. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 February 2021. He said he was unable to trade properly during the pandemic and received several excuses from the Council before it denied his application.
39. Mr X made new business rates relief applications to the Council in March and April 2021. He invited the Council to visit his business. The Council refused his applications and said officers could not visit his premises at that time because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It agreed to put the debt on hold until officers could visit.

Back to top

Analysis

40. The Council decided company A did not occupy its premises for SBRR purposes and said Mr X did not provide evidence he was running a business on 11 March 2020.
41. When Mr X applied for the SBG there was initial confusion about company A’s name and the correct occupier of the premises.
42. I have seen letters exchanged between the Council and company A before Mr X applied for the SBG. Mr X did not tell the Council company A had changed its name. The Council also wrote to Mr X personally at company A’s address, but its letters were returned.
43. The Council could only go on the information Mr X provided. While Mr X said he tried to update company A’s name online I have not seen evidence of this. Company A did at times correspond with the Council, so it could have told the Council about the name change. Ultimately, it is Mr X’s responsibility to ensure the Council had the correct details.
44. The Council was entitled to ask for evidence in support of Mr X’s application. It was not satisfied with the evidence he gave.
45. The Council inspected company A’s premises in August, September, and October 2020 but could not gain access and there was no sign of activity. As this was not a national lockdown period, the Council considered company A should have been trading. While that does not show the premises was unoccupied on 11 March 2020 it was not the only evidence the Council considered.
46. Mr X did not provide clear evidence of any business-related transactions or of company A’s income or outgoings for the relevant period. Mr X did provide rent statements for the premises, but that does not prove the premises were in use or occupied for business purposes.
47. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether Mr X was entitled to a grant, or to say whether the Council should have accepted his evidence. My role is to consider whether the Council made its decision properly.
48. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s application and the evidence he submitted. I am also satisfied the Council did not take anything irrelevant into account.
49. The Council had legitimate concerns and questions about the information Mr X provided, and about a lack of evidence company A was occupying the premises or trading from it at the time the grant scheme was announced. The onus was on Mr X to give the Council the evidence and information it needed to make a decision. The Council was not satisfied Mr X did that. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse his application and I have not seen evidence of fault.
50. On the evidence seen, the Council did consider Mr X’s disability. While Mr X referred to asking for correspondence in braille in an email to the Council in February 2021, I have not seen evidence he made this request earlier. Mr X did raise concerns the Council was not giving him enough time to obtain evidence on account of his disability, but on the evidence seen the Council did allow Mr X more time. The Council told me it wanted to correspond in writing because of the issues it had highlighted with Mr X’s application.
51. Mr X applied for the SBG in April 2020, but the Council did not make a decision until September. I have therefore considered whether there was any undue delay. I am mindful of the fact COVID-19 placed unprecedented demands on the Council. It had to implement new, unfamiliar, grant schemes at pace and had a great many applications to process. I have also taken account of the legitimate concerns the Council raised with Mr X’s application. It took time for the Council to assess the evidence he provided, but I do not consider the time taken was excessive in the circumstances and did not amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman found there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman