Summary: Ms X complains the Council was wrong to refuse her a Local Restrictions Support Grant, resulting in her missing out on this funding. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her a business grant during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the loss of financial support for her business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Ms X and I reviewed documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I also reviewed relevant law and Government guidance.
6. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Local Restrictions Support Grants (LRSG)

7. During the COVID-19 pandemic the Government ordered some businesses to close and gave councils funding to support those businesses. It issued guidance for councils on how to allocate this funding.
8. LRSG (Closed) provided grants to businesses in the highest band of local restrictions from 8 September to 5 November 2020.
9. Eligible businesses were those that had been open as usual and providing in-person services to customers from their business premises but were then required to close by law for a consecutive period of no less than 14 days.
10. Excluded businesses included those:
• able to continue to trade because they did not depend on providing direct in-person services from premises and could operate their services effectively remotely or
• those who chose but were not required to close.
11. The Government imposed a new national lockdown starting on 5 November 2020 and issued an addendum, replacing the guidance referred above. This covered the period 5 November to 2 December 2020 when national restrictions forced businesses to close.
12. Eligible businesses were those ordered to close by Government. This included non-essential retail, leisure, personal care, sports facilities and hospitality businesses.
13. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 set out which businesses had to close by law from 5 November 2020.
14. Part 2 of the schedule sets out those that must close. I note this does not include Ms X’s business.

Working in other people’s homes

15. The Government published guidance “Working safely during COVID-19, other people’s homes”. During the national lockdown, starting 5 November 2020, the Government said people should stay home where possible and should only travel to work if they could not work from home. Those who needed to visit other people's homes for their work could continue to do so.

What happened

16. Ms X applied for a LRSG in mid November 2020, but was unsuccessful.
17. Ms X contacted the Council querying its decision. She explained she ran a design and furnishing business from a studio at her home. She visited clients for consultation and measuring services or they visited her. She could not operate during lockdown and so did not understand why she was ineligible for the grant.
18. The Council explained to be eligible for the grant her business premises must be within the non-essential retail, hospitality and leisure sector and forced to close. She could continue to trade as her business did not depend solely on providing direct in person services and she could operate her services remotely. Therefore, she was not eligible to claim the grant.
19. Ms X told the Council her business was customer facing as she visited customers in their homes to measure and discuss requirements. Sometimes clients visited her studio to view fabric samples. She disagreed her business was “remote”.
20. The Council told Ms X properties used as workrooms or workshops were not eligible. It referred to its own website and Gov.uk for further details on eligibility.
21. Ms X asked to appeal. She explained she ran her business from a studio, not a workroom, though this was the description of the premises for rates purposes. She worked from her studio and occasionally met clients at her studio if a home visit was not appropriate.
22. The Council again said properties used as workrooms or workshops were not eligible.
23. Ms X again said she worked from a studio not a workroom. She considered the area she worked in was not a reason to refuse the grant. She referred to Government guidance which said businesses required to close would receive a grant. She said her business was not critical and so she should not be entering people’s homes to carry out her services. She was trying to protect herself and others by not entering homes.
24. The Council said her business was not one of the non-essential businesses ordered to close and it considered the matter closed.
25. When I spoke to Ms X she explained everyone was told to stay at home during the November lockdown and so she could not visit clients in order to keep working. She believed councils were automatically awarding grants to ratepayers and did not understand why the Council had questioned the nature of her business. She felt the Council kept giving different reasons for refusal. It seemed to think she had a large warehouse or workshop that could operate online but that was not the case. She needed to visit people’s homes in person but could not do so during the lockdown.

Findings

26. The Government guidance said the LRSG was available to businesses forced to close, including those in the non-essential retail, hospitality and leisure sector. A list of those businesses forced to close was set out in the Regulations, referred above.
27. I note Ms X’s business was not one of those forced by law to close.
28. Ms X applied for a grant and the Council refused. It explained Ms X was not ordered to close her business and she could continue to trade remotely, meaning she could visit clients at home. It also referred to her premises as a workroom. That is, somewhere she worked from, rather than a place she depended on to provide in person services. The Council considered Ms X’s business was not one of those ordered to close and so it refused a grant. It considered relevant information and reached a decision in line with the Government guidance. I find no fault in its decision making.
29. The Council could have better explained its decision, with specific reference to the guidance or law to avoid any confusion, but this does not amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X a Local Restrictions Support Grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman