Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused her application for a discretionary grant because she used the wrong online form. We take the view Mrs X used the only form available and so if it was the wrong form this was fault by the Council. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused her online application for a discretionary grant because she applied using the wrong online form. She says she followed a link in an email bulletin sent by the Council and applied using the only online application form available.
2. Mrs X says she experienced unnecessary stress when she was already experiencing severe financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
5. 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

6. 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;
• used the Wayback machine to recreate the webpage accessed by Mrs X;
• 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

COVID-19 discretionary grants

7. In May 2020, the Government introduced a discretionary grant scheme aimed at businesses ineligible for the earlier schemes. To support the introduction of this scheme the Government published guidance contained in: “Local Authorities Discretionary Grants Fund- guidance for local authorities”.
8. Under the scheme, councils could award a discretionary grant of £25,000, £10,000 or any sum under £10,000 to businesses which could not access other grant funding (other than the Job Retention Scheme). The Council had discretion over the amount of payment in each case.
9. The guidance said councils should publish details of their discretionary grant scheme on their website. It said this should include clear guidance on which types of business they would prioritise and how they would decide on the level of grant. In this case, the Council originally decided home based businesses were not eligible but it later changed its criteria and such businesses were able to apply.

The Wayback machine

10. The wayback machine is an online resource aimed at building a digital library of internet sites and artifacts in digital form. It began archiving the internet in 1996 and now contains more than 25 years of web history which can be accessed by individuals.

Key facts

11. Mrs X says that on 11 August 2020 she received an email bulletin from the Council which said the criteria for a discretionary business support grant had changed. The bulletin explained there was just one day left to apply for the grant. Mrs X says she checked the criteria and considered her husband’s business now qualified and so she made an application.
12. Mrs X says on 12 August 2020 she clicked on the link within the email sent to her and completed the application form. Mrs X received an email the same day saying she did not qualify for the grant as she did not pay business rates.
13. After speaking with a friend who did receive the discretionary grant, Mrs X telephoned the Council on 24 September 2020 and an officer said that it appeared she had completed the wrong application form. Mrs X made a formal complaint the same day saying she had followed the link provided by the Council and so cannot understand how she completed the wrong form. She explained the business had suffered during lockdown and it seemed very wrong that she was denied a grant because of an incorrect weblink.
14. The Council responded on 12 October explaining there had been two grant schemes and she had applied for the grant that required applicants to be occupying a business premises and paying business rates. It said the discretionary grant scheme designed to support businesses which run from home, was located on the same webpage. It said the discretionary application required certain declarations to be made and it could not accept a partial application for a different scheme.
15. On 3 December 2020, Mrs X wrote to the Council to escalate her complaint. She again stated there was no choice of form to complete and that she followed the link provided in the email bulletin. Mrs X said the Council has not provided anything to prove to her there was a choice of different application forms. She asked the Council to listen to the telephone conversation she had with the Council when the officer said that the correct form would have asked her to provide proof of council tax and she said this was asked when she completed the form. She also disputed that she had completed the application too late for the Council to advise her to complete the correct form. Mrs X said she made the application one day before the closing date. Mrs X also said she decided to pursue this issue after a friend said she was initially rejected and then the Council advised her to apply again. Mrs X said the friend was awarded a grant. Mrs X said due to the Council’s error they had missed out on £6,250 and expected the Council to now make an equivalent payment.
16. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 3 February 2021. It provided an investigation report and an adjudication letter. The detailed investigation report included details of four council officers who were contacted and/or interviewed about the complaint. The Council said it could not comment on whether a friend had been awarded a grant; that the criteria for each grant scheme was different and so it was not possible to transfer between the schemes; it said Mrs X submitted her application after 7 pm on 11 August and the scheme closed at 12 noon on 12 August and the application was not checked by then; it was unable to trace the telephone she made to the Council; and that it was satisfied she made the wrong application and so there was no fault by the Council.
17. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage three of the Council’s complaints procedure and attended a complaint panel hearing on 22 March 2021. The outcome of the panel was sent to Mrs X on 23 March 2021. It stated the panel found no evidence that would lead it to dispute the conclusions reached by the Stage Two investigation. It recommended an ex-gratia payment of £500 to recognise the stress and frustration suffered by Mrs X as a result of the COVID 19 emergency.
18. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. Mrs X’s complaint focusses on the claim that she applied for a discretionary grant following a weblink provided by the Council. As the Council says she filled in the wrong application form, Mrs X therefore claims the link in the email bulletin sent to her was incorrect.
20. By using the original email bulletin sent by the Council to Mrs X and the Wayback machine, I was able to recreate the application process as it stood on the day Mrs X applied for the grant. This recreated process included a page titled “Start applying” with further text saying “make sure that you have all the evidence required regarding your business to apply for a Discretionary Small Business Support Grant.”
21. While we did not reproduce the whole application procedure using the Wayback machine, I am satisfied that we produced enough to take a view on this complaint. By following the link from the email bulletin we were able to proceed to the application form. There was only one application form available and the page stated it was for a discretionary grant.
22. Therefore, on balance, accepting that I have not recreated the whole process and taking account of the fact the Council in response to my enquiries provided no comments or evidence to dispute the reproduced process, I take the view that Mrs X completed the only form available and the Council was wrong to refuse her application on the basis she completed the wrong form. This was fault and while it is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on Mrs X’s eligibility for the discretionary grant, it is possible she has missed out on a grant.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X as a result of the Council’s fault in this case, it will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

• Apologise to Mrs X;
• Carry out a review to determine whether Mrs X would have been eligible for the discretionary grant if the correct form had been completed, and make a payment equivalent to the amount she would have received; and
• Pay Mrs X £200 to recognise her frustration and time and trouble in pursuing this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman