Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the business grants available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to make his cricket club aware of available Covid grants despite having paid such grants initially.
2. He also says the Council failed to respond to his complaint according to its complaint procedure.
3. He wants the Council to pay the money he believes it was entitled to before the grant schemes closed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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”.
5. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaints.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In its responses to Mr X, the Council says the Government asked Councils to contact eligible organisations about the availability of small business rate reductions and retail, leisure, and hospitality grants. It was not asked to do the same with subsequent grants. It says where possible, it paid new grants automatically to those business which had applied for the last grant. However, changes in eligibility criteria meant this was not always possible.
9. The Council also says it worked with a neighbouring authority in promoting business grants on:
• local radio
• local newspapers
• district and parish council websites; and
• business support groups
10. Details of available grants were also publicised by the Government in press releases, at televised briefings, in national newspapers and on social media.
11. The Council did not have a duty to contact all organisations that may have been eligible for business grants. It is for the organisations and businesses to check the various sources of information and make their own applications where appropriate.
12. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint according to its complaint procedure. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the council. And any injustice suffered because of a failure in the complaints procedure alone is not sufficient to justify the cost of an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman