Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a COVID-19 Restart Grant. This is because the issue concerns the Council’s interpretation of government guidance and there is no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council wrongly refused her application for a Restart Grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and considered her response.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Government announced a new Restart Grant scheme for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2021. The scheme primarily aimed to support businesses which offer in-person services, including dine-in restaurants, and were required to close during the third national lockdown in January 2021.
8. The Government’s Restart Grant guidance states:
9. “21. If a business operates services that could be considered non-essential and also fall into another category, such as hospitality… the main service can be determined by assessing which category constitutes 50% or more of their overall business…”
10. “22. It is understood that in some cases it may not be materially clear whether a business falls into one of the categories, so decisions on the eligibility of these businesses will be at the Local Authorities discretion.”
11. “32. Local Authorities may use the following criteria to assess whether a business is eligible for a grant…
• Businesses offering in-person food and drink services to the general public.
• Businesses that provide food and/or drink to be consumed on the premises, including outdoors.”
12. “33. For these purposes, the definition of a hospitality retail business should exclude: food kiosks and businesses whose main service is a takeaway (not applicably to those that have adapted to offer takeaways during periods of restrictions…)”
13. Mrs X applied to the Council for a Restart Grant but the Council refused her application. This was because it considered her business was primarily a takeaway. Mrs X disputes the Council’s decision; she says her business is a restaurant and that while it offered a takeaway service due to the lockdown its primary function is as a restaurant.
14. The issue here is a matter of interpretation and it is not for us to say the Council is wrong and Mrs X is right. We can only look at whether the Council properly considered the information Mrs X provided and the evidence shows it did.
15. The Council offered Mrs X an opportunity to provide evidence to show the business is primarily used for customers who choose to dine-in but Mrs X has been unable to provide this. Given the nature of the business, the Council’s decision is rational and it is not for us to criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman