Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mr X some COVID-19-related business grants. The Council properly reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council classified his business as a mobility shop rather than personal care and it therefore decided the business was ineligible for a Local Restrictions Support Grant (closed) and a Restart Grant. He says this meant the business did not receive around £7,500.

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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Government treated mobility shops as essential retail, able to remain open during the COVID-19 restrictions. Such businesses were therefore ineligible for the Local Restrictions Support Grant (closed) and the Restart Grant. Personal care businesses were eligible for those grants.
6. When Mr X first disagreed with the Council decision that his business was a mobility shop, the Council asked him to provide reasons for believing the business was personal care. Mr X sent information. Mr X’s information included that the premises were only open to clients by appointment and anyway most in-person contact with clients was at clients’ homes, not on the premises.
7. Government guidance says, ‘The primary principle of the Restart Grant Scheme is to support businesses that offer in-person services, where the main service and activity takes place in a fixed rate-paying premises…’ The Council was therefore entitled to give weight to Mr X saying most of the in-person dealings with clients took place away from the premises. The Guidance also said personal care businesses excluded ‘…businesses that only provide personal care goods, rather than services’. So the Council was also entitled not to consider the part of the business that provided mobility goods rather than services. Councils had discretion to decide those cases where eligibility was unclear.
8. The Council also:
• Contacted the Government department that issued the guidance and funding for the grants.
• Contacted other local authorities, including a representative on the National Business Covid Support Grants Steering Group.
• Considered the nature of mobility shop businesses generally. Mr X argues his business is unique so not comparable to others. The Council did not suggest Mr X’s business was exactly the same as any other, nor was this in itself a decisive factor. However, the Council was entitled to consider Mr X’s description in the context of its understanding of mobility businesses generally.
9. The Council concluded it should treat Mr X’s business as a mobility shop rather than a personal care business.
10. As paragraph 3 explained, we cannot criticise the Council’s decision just because Mr X disagrees with it. Nor can we decide whether the business is a mobility shop or personal care. We can only consider how the Council reached its decision.
11. The Council was entitled to decide how to categorise the business. It evidently recognised this situation was not necessarily straightforward. The Council’s decision was based on the government guidance and information from sources including Mr X. I therefore consider the Council properly reached its decision. I understand Mr X’s disagreement with the decision but that does not enable the Ombudsman to criticise the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman