Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a grant application. The evidence suggests Mr X was not entitled to the grant. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s communications.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not pay his business a £10,000 COVID-19 grant he applied for and did not reply to his communications about this. He states this left his business without the grant he wanted and he went to time and trouble pursuing the matter.

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. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and a copy complaint response the Council supplied.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In August 2020 Mr X applied for a grant. The Council acknowledged the application. Mr X heard nothing more so in March and April 2021 he emailed the Council chasing a response. Still having no reply, he complained formally to the Council in June and to us in August 2021. We asked the Council for the complaint correspondence. The Council then apologised to Mr X for the delay replying to the complaint. It said he had not been eligible for the grant he applied for and advised him to apply for a different grant.

The grant

8. In 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 those businesses. A business’ right to a grant depended on its being on the business rating list on 11 March 2020, its rateable value and its eligibility for certain business rates reliefs on that date. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list.
9. Government guidance stated changes to the VOA rating list after 11 March 2020, even if such changes were backdated to 11 March 2020, did not entitle a business to a grant. A council could only make an exception if, on 11 March 2020, it was already ‘factually clear’ to the Council that the rating list was inaccurate for a particular address.
10. The business’ address was not on the VOA rating list when Mr X applied for the grant. It was added to the rating list in early 2021, with the change backdated to before 11 March 2020.
11. The Council could only award a small business grant if:
1. On 11 March 2020, the business was on the rating list and met the other criteria, or
2. On 11 March 2020 the Council was ‘factually clear’ the rating list was inaccurate for this address. The point here is not whether the rating list was inaccurate but whether, on 11 March 2020, the Council knew it was inaccurate.
12. On point a), on 11 March 2020 Mr X’s property was not on the rating list. So the Council could not award a grant on that basis. On point b), the evidence suggests on 11 March 2020 the VOA had not yet told the Council of any change to the rating list. Nor have I seen any other evidence suggesting the Council was factually clear on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was wrong. The later change to the rating list and the backdating of that change did not make the business eligible for a grant, as paragraph 10 explained.
13. The Council’s decision not to pay a grant appears based on the Government’s guidance and the information the Council had. So that decision appears properly reached. Therefore, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the decision. So I do not propose to fault the Council for not awarding a grant.

The Council’s communications with Mr X

14. I understand Mr X’s frustration at not receiving a response to his application and chasing emails and at the delay replying to his complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about councils’ communications and complaint procedures if we are not dealing the substantive issue. So we shall not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there was no fault in the Council not paying him the grant and it would therefore be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of his communications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman