Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 local restriction support grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a Local Restriction Support Grant (LRSG) for businesses required to close under restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

6. Mr X applied for an LRSG from the Council in early 2021. The aim of the LRSG scheme was to provide funding to businesses which were required to close as a result of national restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19. This included businesses operating within the non-essential retail sector.
7. Mr X’s application explained he was unable to conduct the main part of his business but confirmed his staff continued to provide support to clients and that he continued to work from his office.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application as it did not consider his business was in the non-essential retail sector or that it was required to close. Mr X disagrees with this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The information Mr X provided to the Council clearly showed his business was not closed over the period in question. While Mr X may have had to scale back his business activities this did not entitle him to a grant.
10. The Council considered the information Mr X provided in reaching its view and I have seen no evidence of fault in its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman