Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award him a COVID-19 business grant. While one reason for its refusal appears flawed we cannot question the Council’s decision that Mr X did not meet the criteria for the grant. Any fault did not therefore cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a Restart grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s company owns and rents out industrial units to other businesses. He says his company was responsible for business rates at one of the units but the Council refused his application for a Restart grant.
7. The Council accepts there was some misunderstanding regarding Mr X’s application but it says Mr X’s company was not liable for business rates on the 1 April 2021 so it was not eligible for the grant. This is based on Paragraph 15 of the government guidance document which states:

“Any changes to the rating list (rateable value or to the hereditament) after 1 April 202 should be ignored for the purposes of eligibility…”

8. We consider the Council’s reasoning on this point is flawed as changes to liability are separate from changes to the rating list and the Council has confirmed there was no change to the rating list in this case. However we cannot say this caused Mr X significant injustice as the Council has given another reason for refusal which we cannot question.
9. The purpose of the Restart grant was to support non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care and gym businesses delivering in-person services to the general public and Mr X’s business did not qualify, regardless of its liability for business rates on 1 April 2021.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because any fault by the Council did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman