Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to his application for a grant under the COVID-19 discretionary business grant scheme. He states not getting a grant worsened the financial problems the COVID-19 restrictions caused his business. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint-handling.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and copy correspondence from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X applied to the Council for a discretionary COVID-19 grant for his business. Although he runs his business in the Council’s area, his application only gave his home address, outside the Council’s area, and gave no indication the business itself was in the Council’s area. The Council emailed Mr X promptly, using the correct email address, saying it would not deal with the application as Mr X’s address was outside its area. Mr X reports he did not receive that email, so could not reply explaining the business was in the Council’s area. Mr X did not contact the Council again for several months to ask what had happened to his application. By then the government had closed the grant schemes and taken back any unspent grant money from councils. Mr X wants the Council to seek money back from central government to pay him a grant.
5. The Council considered and replied to Mr X’s application. It was not the Council’s fault Mr X did not receive the Council’s email or that Mr X did not contact the Council again until after the scheme had closed. So there is no evidence of fault by the Council with the grant application. Nor, in the circumstances, is there any fault in the Council declining to ask central government to give it money for a grant to Mr X now. The grant scheme was time-limited by the government. It is not for the Council to challenge that.
6. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint-handling. The Council took three months to reply to his stage 2 complaint, despite Mr X chasing a response. The Council apologised for the delay. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. For this reason, I shall not investigate the Council’s complaint-handling. In any event, we would be unlikely to recommend more than the apology the Council has already offered on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the main point about the grant. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman