Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a Restart Grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms B, complains the Council took too long to deal with her application for a COVID-19 business grant. As a result she was unaware of an error in her application and missed out on the grant. She says this has caused financial difficulty and puts her business at risk of permanent closure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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”.
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms B and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

6. From March 2020, the Government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of them.
7. In Spring 2021 the Government introduced a Restart Grant to help businesses which had been forced to close to reopen to the public. Ms B applied for a Restart Grant in early May but the Council did not have enough information to decide the application. It asked Ms B for further details on 5 June and Ms B responded on 24 June 2021. The Council reviewed the information and rejected Ms B’s application on 12 July 2021. This was because Ms B had applied in her own name as a sole trader but it was her business, a limited company, which was liable for business rates for the premises. It was therefore the eligible party for the grant rather than Ms B herself.
8. Ms B would have submitted a new application for the limited company at this point but the Restart Grant closed to new applications on 30 June 2021; she could not therefore reapply. She complains the Council took too long to consider the information she provided and believes the Council should award her business the grant.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The issue in this case stems from Ms B applying for the Restart Grant in her own name rather than that of the company and we cannot hold the Council responsible for this.
10. The Council took 18 days to review the information Ms B provided but this was not fault. Ms B herself took 19 days to provide the information and at that point there were only six days (four working days) until the deadline for new applications. We could not say the Council should have reviewed the information and told Ms B to reapply in her company’s name this quickly. It did not matter whether the Council reviewed the information on 1 July or 12 July 2021; the deadline for new applications had passed and Ms X could not therefore reapply.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman