Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly interpreted government guidance to exclude her business from being able to claim grants for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council wrongly decided her business was not eligible for government grants for businesses forced to close in the November 2020 and January 2021 national lockdowns. She says this has impacted her business financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X contacted the Council in 2020 to enquire about her eligibility for government grants payable to businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. She operates a business (Business Y) within premises occupied by another related business (Business Z). The premises have a single entry on the rating list and are under the same ownership. However, during the second and third national lockdowns in November 2020 and January 2021 Business Y was required to close while Business Z remained open.
7. Mrs X believes the Council should award her government grants for Business Y’s closure but the Council advised she is not eligible. It refers to government guidance which states premises “will be eligible to receive a grant through the [scheme] if the business is required to close its main service. Local Authorities will be required to exercise their discretion and judge whether this is the case based on their local knowledge.”
8. Mrs X confirms Business Y accounts for 40% of trade from the premises but says it works on a higher profit margin than Business Z. She therefore considers it meets the requirement or that it should be considered separately from Business Z.
9. The Council has clearly considered the government guidance and it is not for us to say it has wrongly interpreted it. The premises are not separately listed for business rates purposes and the Council’s decision takes into account the information Mrs X has provided. It is clear and rational and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman