Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not inform him promptly that he was not entitled to a Local Restrictions Support Grant because his business was not within its area. Mr X has now been paid the grant by the correct local authority which provides a remedy for his complaint. It is not proportionate to investigate the issues relating to communications and so the Ombudsman will discontinue his investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not inform him promptly that he was not entitled to a Local Restrictions Support Grant because his business was not within its area.
2. While Mr X has now been awarded the grant from the correct Council he considers some system improvements around communication could be made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has created different grant schemes for councils to pay to small businesses. This included the Local Restrictions Support Grant for businesses severely impacted by lockdown.
7. Mr X owns a holiday property in a different council area from where he lives. Mr X received an initial COVID-19 grant from that local authority, which I will call Local Authority A. In January 2021, Mr X contacted Calderdale MBC (the Council) saying he runs a holiday let which cannot open and asked about any support it could provide. Mr X did not provide any information about the location of the property that would have alerted the Council to the fact it was not in its area.
8. The Council responded with information about the grants and amounts available. It also provided a link to check eligibility and stated “Please ensure you apply for the existing grants by the end of January 2021. If you are an existing applicant you do not need to reapply, repeat payments will be processed automatically when you respond to the email from the Council which will be sent in the next few weeks”.
9. Mr X assumed this to mean he would receive the payment automatically as he was an existing applicant. However, he was an existing applicant with Local Authority A and not this local authority.
10. Mr X sent the Council a chaser email on 25 January and asked the Council to confirm it would contact him before the end of the month. The Council responded on 27 January saying he would receive an email shortly and he did not need to apply again for the Local Restrictions Support Grant as it is automatic after applying previously.
11. Mr X contacted the Council again in February, March and April as he had not received any email or grant money. On 14 April the Council emailed Mr X apologising for the lack of contact and invited him to submit an application.
12. Mr X contacted the Council the next day saying he was unable to complete the application form as it was not accepting his postcode as a valid Calderdale MBC postcode. He provided details of the holiday let business. It then became clear to all parties that Mr X was applying to the wrong local authority.
13. Mr X complained to the Council on 21 April. He explained what had happened and said he had now lost the opportunity to apply to Local Authority A and receive the grant. He said that at no point did the Council alert him to the fact he was applying to the wrong local authority and asked for compensation to cover the lost grant.
14. The Council replied saying that while it never asked for address details of the holiday let, Mr X never provided that information and it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit the application to the correct local authority. It said it could not provide compensation.
15. Mr X contacted the Council again asking if that was its final response as he intended to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council responded saying he was free to contact the Ombudsman and the matter had not been logged for investigation by the Council.
16. After complaining to the Ombudsman, Mr X was awarded the full amount of grant by Local Authority A. He says he is therefore no longer seeking compensation but considers the Council could improve its communications.

Analysis

17. Mr X complained the Council did not inform him promptly that he was not entitled to a Local Restrictions Support Grant because his business was not within its area. Mr X was seeking compensation to cover the amount of grant he considers he lost. Local Authority A has now paid the full amount due to Mr X under the COVID-19 grant schemes and Mr X confirms this part of the complaint is resolved.
18. I note that Mr X considers there are other improvements that could be made in respect of communications. As the main injustice to Mr X has been resolved by payment of the grant, I have considered whether to investigate the other issues he raises. I have decided it would not be proportionate to investigate the other matters further.
19. This case involves COVID-19 grants which were administered by local authorities. These payments were introduced by the Government to respond to an exceptional situation and were introduced at speed in order to get money quickly to affected businesses. As the schemes referred to in this complaint are now closed and are unlikely to be used again, I am not persuaded any investigation of the process to seek improvements would be a good use of public money. I therefore intend to use the Ombudsman’s general discretion to discontinue this investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will now discontinue my investigation as the main injustice to Mr X has been resolved and it is not proportionate to investigate other matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman