Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him a business grant, causing financial loss. We have found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his business a Restart Grant, meaning he lost out on this support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
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. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Restart Grants

7. In March 2021 the Government introduced a grant to help businesses reopen following COVID-19 restrictions. It issued guidance to councils on how to administer this: “Restart Grant, guidance for local authorities”. I have referred to relevant sections below.
8. The primary principle of the Restart Grant scheme was to support businesses that offered in-person services, where the main service and activity took place in a fixed rate-paying premises, in the relevant sector. The sectors supported were non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care and gyms.
9. The Government provided a non-exhaustive list of businesses that fell into scope for each sector. However, councils were to use their local knowledge and the definitions and criteria set out to decide on eligibility. Where a business fell into two categories, the council was to decide based on the main service - the category that constituted 50% or more of the overall business.
10. A non-essential retail business was a business used mainly or wholly for the purposes of retail, sale or hire of goods or services by the public. This excluded food retailers. It included clothes shops and book shops.
11. A hospitality business was a business whose main function was to provide a venue for the consumption and sale of food and drink. This excluded businesses whose main service was a takeaway. It included restaurants and cafes.
12. A leisure business was a business that provided opportunities, experiences and facilities, in particular for culture, recreation, entertainment, celebratory events and days and nights out. This excluded retail businesses. It included events venues.

What happened

13. In April 2021 Mr X applied for a Restart Grant. On his application form he described his business as hospitality, providing small events catering and takeaway.
14. The Council refused a grant because Companies House provided information that the main business was a takeaway. The Council provided a weblink to information on excluded businesses.
15. Mr X explained the business did not supply takeaways to individuals rather they supplied food to large events and parties where they catered for clients.
16. The Council told Mr X he remained ineligible. Mr X then asked for its reasons given the business was not a takeaway.
17. The Council treated this as a stage 1 complaint and replied in May. It said on speaking to Mr X that day, he said food was prepared at his premises and then supplied for functions. The officer explained that the Restart Grants were for businesses predominately reliant on providing services and goods via their businesses in-person. For example, a restaurant, pub or cafe. The Council was satisfied Mr X did not qualify.
18. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2. He explained his business provided food in person to groups and events, further that clients could choose to dine in if they wished. The business relied on both catering and hosting on premises to small events and parties, on a 50:50 ratio. He felt the business was eligible, but the Council kept giving different reasons for refusal.
19. The Council explained it initially refused his application as Companies House described the business as a takeaway and these were excluded from the grant. Mr X then explained the business supplied food at large events and did not mention hosting 50% of business on the premises. Mr X had not provided any evidence to support this new submission. Considering the initial information and the lack of evidence to support his new submission, it maintained its decision to refuse the grant.
20. Mr X pointed out the Council had not asked him for evidence in support and he could provide this. He then sent the Council evidence of bookings that had to be cancelled due to lockdown. He provided three booking forms which showed clients had booked an events room on three dates in August and September 2020.
21. The Council considered the evidence and told Mr X it was not satisfied the main service and activity of his business took place in his fixed rate-paying premises. Consequently, its position remained the same. It would not award the grant.

Findings

22. It is not my role to consider Mr X’s evidence and reach my own decision on whether his business is eligible for a Restart Grant. Rather, my role is to investigate how the Council reached its own decision and whether it followed a proper decision-making process.
23. Government guidance said the Restart Grants were available to those providing an in-person service on their business premises in a relevant sector. Takeaways were specifically excluded from the scheme.
24. The Council initially rejected a grant upon information that the main service of Mr X’s business was a takeaway. The Council considered the information available and decided in line with the Government guidance. I find no fault in its decision-making.
25. When Mr X told the Council he provided catering to events, the Council refused the grant because he was not providing an in-person service at his business premises. Again, the Council considered the information available and decided in line with the Government guidance. I find no fault in its decision making.
26. Mr X then told the Council he provided 50% of events catering on his business premises. The Council initially refused the grant due to the lack of supporting evidence. However, the Council had not given Mr X chance to provide this evidence. The Council therefore did not consider relevant information. This would be fault except the Council did then allow Mr X to provide evidence in support.
27. Mr X provided the Council with evidence of bookings for events to take place at his business premises. The Council considered this evidence but found it did not show the main service took place on site. This was a judgement the Council was entitled to reach. The Council considered the information available to it and decided in line with the Government guidance. I find no fault in its decision making.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. I find no evidence of fault in how the Council decided on Mr X's application for a Restart Grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman