Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants causing stress and financial loss. There was no fault in the way the Council considered his applications.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a Local Restrictions Support grant (LRSG) because it incorrectly said his business was not forced to close during the second national lockdown. He said the Council applied the wrong criteria. As a result, Mr X says he suffered stress and the business suffered a financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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”.
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 considered the information Mr X and the Council provided.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Local Restrictions Support Grant (Closed) Addendum (LRSG)

7. The Government provided support to businesses forced to close during the second national lockdown from 5 November to 2 December 2020. This was later extended to cover the third national lockdown from 5 January to 31 March 2021.
8. Eligible businesses were those required to close in line with Government restrictions. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 sets out which businesses had to close by law. This included non-essential retail, leisure, personal care, sports facilities and hospitality businesses.

What happened

9. Mr X operates a business providing services for insurance companies and solicitors, including inspecting vehicles following accidents and providing reports. Mr X meets clients face to face to obtain a description of the accident leading to the referral and meets them again to check and sign the report.
10. On 1 December 2020, Mr X applied for a Local Restrictions Support grant (LRSG) for the second national lockdown. On the application form he described the business as “other retail” and said it provided “investigation services”. He said the business had been forced to close during the lockdown from 4 November 2020.
11. The Council refused the grant. It sent him a letter dated 1 December 2020. Its reason for refusal was that the business was not forced to close during the lockdown. Mr X said he did not receive the letter. He emailed the Council on 27 January 2021 asking for an update on the application. The Council replied on 27 January to explain it had sent a letter by post. On 9 March 2021 Mr X said he had not received the letter and the Council sent a further copy the same day.
12. On 31 March 2021, Mr X complained. He said the Council:
• had not responded to his email on 20 January 2021;
• had refused on the basis the business was not forced to close, which was incorrect;
• had not understood relevant Government criteria, which he considered the business had satisfied. He said he had to close because he needed to see clients face to face and inspect their vehicles.
13. On 6 April 2021, the Council confirmed it was referring the case to its reconsideration team. On 21 April, the reconsideration team asked Mr X for further information. It asked Mr X to explain the nature of the business and what it entailed day to day, with relevant proof. In addition, it noted he said the business was retail on the application form and therefore asked him to provide photos of the premises, including products for sale, the sales counter and the shop entrance. The email did not include a deadline for responding.
14. On 13 May 2021, the Council said that as Mr X had not provided the information it asked for, it could not consider his appeal and the original decision would stand. It said the grant scheme was now closed so the decision was final and there was no further right of appeal.
15. Mr X replied on 25 May. He explained the nature of the business and said it was not a retail shop so the second part of the request did not apply. He asked for a response within 14 days or he would refer the matter to us.
16. The Council responded on 26 May 2021. It said that unfortunately the business was not in an eligible sector for the grant. Therefore, its decision would stand but Mr X could complain to us if he thought the grant scheme was administered incorrectly. Mr X complained to us in June 2021.

My findings

17. Mr X applied for a LRSG during the second national lockdown. Government Guidance said eligible businesses were those forced to close by law. Mr X’s business was not one that was on the list of businesses forced to close. The Council had no discretion about this. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for refusing the grant on this basis.
18. When Mr X challenged its decision, the Council agreed to reconsider it and asked for further information. It would have been better if it had given Mr X a deadline for responding but I do not consider the failure to do so amounts to fault. In any case, it did allow three weeks for Mr X to provide the information, which was a reasonable time for him to respond.
19. The Council was not at fault for asking for evidence to show the business was retail since this was the category Mr X selected when applying for the grant.
20. Whilst I appreciate Mr X was unhappy with the outcome, I have not found evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the grant application.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman