Summary: Although the complainant missed out on a COVID-19 business support grant it appears he was eligible for, this was not due to fault by the Council. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr F.
2. Mr F complains the Council has not paid a COVID-19 business support grant for a retail unit his business operates.

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. 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 reviewed Mr F’s correspondence with the Council, relevant Government and Council guidance for the grant scheme.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In the following chronology I will summarise the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive account of every incidence of correspondence between Mr F and the Council.
8. Mr F runs a retail business which occupies several different industrial units on the same site, each with its own business rates liability. On 9 March 2020, the Council issued business rates demands for each unit.
9. In April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government announced a number of schemes to support businesses which had been forced to close. This included the expanded retail discount (ERD), which reduced qualifying businesses’ rates to £0 for the tax year 2020/21; and the retail, hospitality and leisure (RHL) grant scheme. To qualify for the RHL grant scheme, a business had to be in receipt of the ERD for the premises in question.
10. The Council automatically applied the ERD to three of Mr F’s business units, and subsequently paid grants to them under the RHL and small business grant (SBG) schemes. However, it did not apply the ERD to one retail unit (which I will refer to as ‘Unit X’).
11. In May, Mr F applied for a grant for Unit X. The Council says its records did not show this unit qualified for ERD, and so it sent Mr F an email on 2 July, explaining how he could apply for it. Mr F says he did not receive this email.
12. On 28 August, the RHL scheme closed to new applicants.
13. In October, the Council sent Mr F a reminder about the outstanding rates bill for Unit X. Mr F replied to query this, believing it was in receipt of the ERD. After further correspondence, the Council granted ERD for Unit X in November, backdated to 1 April.
14. In January 2021, Mr F asked the Council why Unit X had not received an RHL grant payment. The Council explained the scheme had closed to applications on 28 August, and the Government had required the Council to stop making payments on 30 September. As Unit X had not been granted ERD until after the closing date, the Council could not pay a grant for it.
15. Mr F made a complaint to the Council about this, but the Council maintained its position. Mr F then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 July.

Legislative background

Expanded retail discount

16. In March 2020, the Government announced that all retail businesses would receive 100% relief from business rates for the tax year 2020/21. In April, it then published guidance for councils on how to apply this relief.
17. At paragraph 10, the guidance said:

“Properties that will benefit from the relief will be occupied hereditaments that are wholly or mainly being used:

1. as shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas and live music venues,
2. for assembly and leisure; or
3. as hotels, guest & boarding premises and self-catering accommodation.”

Retail, hospitality and leisure grants

18. In March 2020, the government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses and retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of them.
19. To qualify for the scheme, a business’s premises had to have a rateable value of less than £51,000, and be eligible for the ERD.
20. The grant scheme closed to applications on 28 August 2020, with the scheme ending entirely on 30 September 2020.

Analysis

21. Mr F complains the Council did not pay the RHL grant for Unit X, despite having paid grants for other units on the site. He questions why the Council’s records did not show Unit X as a retail unit, which would have allowed it to automatically apply the ERD, and then pay an RHL grant.
22. The Council has explained officers had “local knowledge” about other units on the site, which meant they were able to apply the ERD without seeking further information. However, the Council says its information did not show Unit X was eligible for the ERD. After Mr F applied for a grant in May, the Council says it sent him a link to an online form to apply for the ERD on 2 July, but did not hear anything further from him until October, by which time the scheme had closed.
23. I understand Mr F’s confusion at the fact the Council did not treat Unit X the same as other units on the site, given (as he has pointed out) the units all have the same description on the rating list. However, this description is “workshop and premises”, which does not obviously fall into any of the qualifying categories for the ERD – and so I cannot say officers should have automatically treated units on the site as eligible based on this description.
24. I also cannot say why officers’ knowledge did not cover all units on the site. But there is no reason for me to find fault for this reason; and in fact, it appears Mr F’s business actually benefitted here, because without it, none of his units would have automatically received the ERD and/or grants.
25. For Unit X, the critical issue is therefore the Council’s email of 2 July. Had Mr F received this, he presumably would have applied for (and received) the ERD for Unit X before the closure of the RHL scheme.
26. The Council has provided a copy of this email. It was correctly addressed to Mr F’s email address, and I can see nothing else about it which would indicate why it may not have arrived.
27. I acknowledge there may be other reasons why an email may not transmit properly, such as technical problems with either the sending or receiving server. But, beyond speculation, there is no way for me to determine why Mr F did not receive the Council’s email. I cannot say, on the available evidence, it was due to an error by the Council.
28. I have also considered whether, upon receiving no response from Mr F, the Council should have chased him up. However, given the complexity and scope of the various different support schemes the Council had been asked to administer at short notice, the number of businesses in the Council’s area which might have qualified for one or more of the schemes, and the particular pressure the Council was under during the early part of the pandemic, I do not consider this is a reasonable expectation.
29. Given it appears clear Unit X did qualify for the RHL scheme, it is unfortunate Mr F was not prompted to contact the Council again until it issued its reminder in October. At this point, the Council acted quickly to grant and backdate the ERD; but the RHL scheme had closed by then, and, as the Council says, it had no discretion to consider late applications, even those which would likely have been granted.

Conclusions

30. I appreciate, and do not dismiss, Mr F’s sense of grievance that Unit X missed out on a substantial grant. However, I am not persuaded this was caused by inadequate record-keeping by the Council. The Council should have up-to-date records of the current ratepayer for each rateable premises, but this does not mean its records must show the exact nature of the business operating there.
31. Once the ERD scheme was announced, it is clear the Council took steps to apply it automatically to those premises it was confident were eligible. It is unfortunate Unit X was not amongst these, but once Mr F contacted the Council, it appropriately advised him to apply for the ERD.
32. It is also unfortunate Mr F did not receive this email. However, as I have explained, I cannot say this was due to fault by the Council. Without this, I cannot say the fact he missed out on a RHL payment was an injustice arising from Council fault, and so, in turn I cannot make a recommendation it should now make good his loss.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman