Summary: Mr X complained he was not awarded the same COVID-19 grants as some of his competitors putting him at a disadvantage. Mr X’s business was not mandated to close and so was not entitled to some of the grants he claims his competitors received from different local authorities. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council administered the grants for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he was not awarded the same COVID-19 grants as some of his competitors.
2. Mr X says this is unfair and gives other businesses a competitive advantage.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. 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

Additional Restrictions Grant Fund

6. On 31 October 2020 the government announced that national restrictions would be reintroduced. Enhanced business support settlements that had previously been provided to areas entering Tier 3 restrictions were extended and formalised into the Additional Restrictions Grant.
7. The ARG funding is a discretionary scheme that aims to support businesses severely impacted by coronavirus restrictions. All businesses that are trading and meet other eligibility criteria may apply to receive funding under this scheme. Government guidance said applications are required under this scheme for new applicants.

Local Restrictions Support Grant (closed)

8. From 5 November to 2 December 2020 the government introduced this grant to provide support to businesses mandated to close following the imposition of national restrictions. Funding was made by Local Authorities on a 28-day payment cycle for as long as the national restrictions applied.
9. Businesses must have been trading the day before national restrictions came into force to be eligible to receive funding under this scheme. A business was considered to be trading if it was engaged in business activity. The guidance said this should be interpreted as carrying on a trade or profession, or buying and selling goods or services in order to generate turnover.

Local Restrictions Support Grant (open)

10. From 2 December 2020 the government introduced this grant for businesses that were not legally required to close but were severely impacted by Tier 2 or Tier 3 restrictions. While primarily aimed at the hospitality, leisure, hotel and bed and breakfast businesses, local authorities had discretion to determine the precise eligibility criteria for these grants.

Key facts

11. Mr X’s business is exhibition stand building. As trade show events stopped in March 2020 he has had no work since that time. When Mr X first contacted the Council he had not received any grant funding. He says he had found out some of his competitors had been given grants by other local authorities on the basis they were required to close. Mr X felt it was unfair he had not received any grant funding.
12. Mr X submitted an application in January 2021 for the ARG from 26 December. This was approved by the Council on 18 January and it notified Mr X. Mr X replied asking if the grant would be backdated for the period 5 November to 2 December 2020 as he believed he had also applied for that period. The Council replied that the scheme for the November lockdown was aimed at businesses legally required to close and that it closed to applications on 20 December.
13. Further correspondence between Mr X and the Council resulted in an email from the Council providing a link to the LRSG scheme that was still open for the period 5 November to 2 December. Mr X replied saying he could not apply for that scheme as he had not been forced to close. He explained his issue was that while his business was not forced to close, the places he normally worked were now nightingale hospitals and all trade events were cancelled. Mr X asked who he should contact about the discretionary fund.
14. Mr X contacted the Council again two weeks later saying he had not received a response to his previous email. The Council replied apologising for not replying sooner and giving the name of another officer to contact. Mr X contacted this officer setting out his concerns. The officer replied confirming the amounts he was entitled to and asking him to clarify information so she could look further into his concerns.
15. An email from Mr X on 23 February set out his concerns and queries. Mr X said he had received conflicting information about which grants he was entitled to. He confirmed his business was not legally required to close but the sector he worked in was not operating. He again asked about discretionary grants. He also provided the names of two companies that had been given “closed” grants.
16. The Council responded on 2 March. In respect of the two companies, while they are not in the same council area, the officer had looked at public documents. She said that one business included a showroom and this might have been forced to close which would trigger the grant. The Council said that its discretionary scheme was not open to businesses it had helped through the LRSG but was targeted as those businesses that had fallen through the gaps.
17. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. In response, the Council noted his comments about other businesses but said it is the responsibility of each local authority to administer the Government’s grant schemes and to pay discretionary grants under their own set criteria. It confirmed the grant payments made to Mr X.
18. Since making his complaint Mr X has received the following funding from the Council:

• Local Restrictions Support Grant (Open) 2 December to 25 December
• Additional Restrictions Grant 26 December to 31 March
• Additional Restrictions Grant April to May
• Additional Restrictions Grant (Sector Specific)
• Additional Restrictions Grant Automatic top up payment

Analysis

19. Mr X complains he has not been awarded the same grants as some of his competitor businesses putting him at a disadvantage. In particular, he says they received grants under the “closed” scheme. Mr X previously provided the Council with details of two companies he believed had received closed grants.
20. The Council confirms these companies are based outside its area and so the grants were awarded by other local authorities. It did look into Mr X’s claims using the public Valuation Office records and provided an explanation of why it thought they may have received the grants.
21. I am satisfied the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns about other companies as far as it could. While I understand Mr X’s frustration and feelings he had been treated unfairly, there is no evidence to suggest this is because of fault by the Council. Mr X’s business was not mandated to close under the lockdown and so he was not entitled to the closed grants. I find no fault by the Council.
22. Mr X has received funding from the Council under the various government schemes. Payments have been made from 2 December 2020 onwards. Mr X did not receive any money for the period from 5 November to 1 December. I note that in his email correspondence with the Council in January 2021 he said he thought he was applying for that period. He asked about the discretionary scheme for that period and the Council did not provide a clear answer.
23. The ARG discretionary grant scheme stated that applications would need to be submitted within 14 days of the end of each 28 day period. As the scheme began on 5 November this would mean an application would have to be submitted by 16 December. In response to my enquiries, the Council says Mr X did not submit an application for the ARG discretionary grant scheme but that he would have been eligible if he had.
24. Based on what I know so far, Mr X did not contact the Council before 16 December about the ARG discretionary grant scheme. His contact with the Council was after the closing date for applications. The Council could have been clearer with Mr X and told him this when he was in contact with it in January 2021. But he had missed the date to apply and so the grant was no longer payable.
25. I am satisfied the Council did advertise the ARG discretionary grant in November 2020. It sent emails to businesses that had received previous grants as well as advertising the opportunity in the business bulletins it sends to more than 2000 addresses. It says the information was also available on its website and included in its social media posts. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s decision not to pay the ARG from 5 November to 1 December.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman