Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused her application for a COVID-19-related business grant. She says this worsened her business’ financial problems related to the COVID-19 restrictions.

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Government created the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) for businesses as it recognised some businesses had not been legally required to close during COVID-19 restrictions, so had not received grants for that, but the restrictions had still affected them. Mrs X’s business is in that category. Councils had discretion about which businesses to give ARGs in their area. There was no expectation that every business affected by COVID-19 would get a grant.
7. Mrs X’s business sells various goods and services. The sector her business works in was not one of the sectors the Council decided to support with ARG funding. Mrs X is unhappy about that, but it was for the Council to decide which sectors to prioritise. I do not criticise the Council for this.
8. While Mrs X’s overall business is not in any of the sectors the Council’s ARG policy prioritised, one of the sectors the Council said it could give grants to was ‘consultancy’ businesses. The Council says it therefore considered whether the ‘inspection services and training’ part of Mrs X’s business might amount to consultancy but decided it did not qualify for a grant because that work only accounted for 5.5% of Mrs X’s sales in 2020. Mrs X says this misses the point that in 2020 the pandemic affected that work, so earnings for it were much lower than normal. I understand that argument. However, the Council could use whatever period it chose when considering data from applicant businesses and the same criteria applied to all applicants. So the Council’s approach here did not amount to fault.
9. The Council also considered whether the sales demonstrations and product training parts of Mrs X’s business might be considered as consultancy. It decided such work did not meet ‘the widely accepted definition of Consultancy.’ That was for the Council to decide.
10. It is also relevant that a consultancy business would reasonably be understood to be a business whose sole or main activity was consultancy. It therefore seems unlikely Mrs X’s business, which advertises itself as selling and repairing a range of goods and providing various services, would ever have been considered a consultancy business. So it is not likely that any fault by the Council deprived Mrs X of a grant in relation to consultancy work.
11. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision based on its policy and information it had about Mrs X’s business. Therefore the Council properly reached its decision to refuse the grant. I understand why Mrs X disagrees, as she is entitled to do. However I cannot criticise a properly reached decision.
12. Mrs X says the Council encouraged her to apply for a grant under the ‘consultancy’ head. If that was the case, I understand Mrs X would have spent time applying and then had her expectation disappointed. However, I do not consider those points amount to significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate, especially as we do not criticise the Council’s refusal of the grant.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the evidence indicates the Council reached its decision properly. Investigation is unlikely to find any fault but for which Mrs X would have been likely to receive a grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman