Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave him incorrect advice about the deadline for its discretionary COVID-19 business grant scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or to suggest the Council’s actions caused Mr X injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his ‘freedom of information’ request as it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly advised him there was no deadline for its discretionary COVID-19 business grant scheme and refused his application because it was made late. He also complains the Council failed to provide information he requested and is not happy with its handling of his complaint.

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)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In March 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 them.
7. As there was initially no indication of how long the COVID-19 pandemic would last the schemes were at first introduced with no definitive end-date. It is therefore possible the Council may have advised him there was no deadline for applying for a discretionary grant at the time he enquired, but that this advice was accurate and did not amount to fault.
8. In any case, Mr X could not expect the schemes to be open forever and to have unlimited funding. It was his responsibility to keep up to date with any information published by the Council about the scheme and to apply in good time. Had he applied at the outset and when he enquired about the scheme there would have been no reason for him to complain. The Council has however confirmed he would not have been eligible for a grant under the scheme anyway as he did not meet the relevant criteria.
9. Mr X wants to know which businesses were awarded a grant but suggests the Council has failed to respond to his ‘freedom of information’ request on this point. If Mr X believes the Council has not properly dealt with his request it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to the Information Commissioner.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

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 and we could not attribute the injustice Mr X claims to fault by the Council in any event.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman