Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the City of London Corporation (‘the Corporation’) reclaiming a business grant and business rates relief. This is because the Corporation properly reached its decision the business had not been eligible.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the City of London Corporation reclaimed a COVID-19-related business grant and business rates relief it had previously awarded. He believes his business was eligible for the grant and rates relief, so losing them worsened the financial problems the COVID-19 situation caused the business.

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 Corporation 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 the Corporation’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 copy complaint correspondence from the Corporation. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In March 2020, the Government created a scheme for local authorities to pay grants to some retail, hospitality and leisure businesses affected by the Covid-19 restrictions. To receive the grant, a business had to have a rateable value below £51,000 and had to have been eligible for rates relief under the expanded retail discount scheme (ERDS) had that scheme been in force on 11 March 2020.
7. The ERDS gave some properties business rates relief. The relevant eligibility criteria included that the property was ‘wholly or mainly’ used as a shop, which is a test of use, not of occupation. Travel agents counted as shops if they met this and other eligibility criteria. The Government guidance expressly excluded properties ‘that are not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public’.
8. In May 2020 the Corporation gave Mr X’s travel business a grant of £25,000 and ERDS rates relief. In September 2020, the Corporation said it had concluded after further checks the business had not in fact been eligible, so it withdrew the rates relief and asked for the grant back.
9. As paragraph 4 explained, we can only criticise a decision that was not properly reached. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body that can replace the Corporation’s judgement with its own judgement.
10. The Corporation based its decision on the Government guidance and on information the Corporation held, including information and arguments from the business in correspondence about the matter. Explaining its decision to withdraw the grant and rates relief, the Corporation gave reasons for concluding:
1. The property is mostly an office dealing with people online and by telephone, with only some customers visiting in person. Therefore the Corporation judged the property is not ‘wholly or mainly’ used as a shop.
2. The property is ‘not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public.’ The Corporation gave weight to the business being on an upper floor without much signage at street level, and to the Corporation’s officers not managing to gain access when they had called, including at one visit before any COVID-19 restrictions. The Corporation also gave weight to one of the business’ directors telling it the business was not arguing that it allowed access to members of the public, rather it was arguing it provided a service very similar to that provided by travel agents who received visits from the general public.
11. The evidence suggests the Corporation took account of relevant information and arguments and gave reasons for its decision to withdraw the grant and rate relief. Therefore the Corporation properly reached that decision. So, while I understand Mr X’s disagreement with the decision, I cannot criticise the decision.
12. Mr X argues his business is not different from many other travel agencies in having much of its dealings with customers by telephone and online, rather than in person. However, that is not directly relevant to the Corporation’s decision. The grant and rates relief were not aimed at all travel agencies, just at ones that met the criteria in the Government guidance.
13. I recognise the Corporation’s change of position after awarding the grant and relief would have been unexpected and disappointing to Mr X. However, I do not consider that amounts to a significant enough injustice to warrant investigating whether the Corporation was at fault for awarding the grant and relief in the first place. I also note Mr X does not argue that point; indeed, he believes the Corporation’s initial decision was correct.
14. Mr X says the Corporation’s position is inconsistent with other local authorities that awarded the grant and rates relief to his business’ offices in other areas. As the Government delegated decision-making to each local authority, there is scope for differences between areas. In the circumstances, this does not enable me to fault how the Corporation reached its ultimate decision.
15. Mr X argues other Government departments said businesses such as his should receive grants and rate relief. However, this decision was for the Corporation, and it could not ignore the content of the Government’s guidance. As I have explained, I do not fault how the Corporation reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there was no fault in the Corporation deciding the business was not eligible and any injustice from the Corporation’s change of position was not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman