Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is unreasonably seeking to recover money it says it paid to the complainant from the Local Restrictions Grant Scheme when he was not eligible. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr S, says the Council is unreasonably seeking recovery of a grant it believes it paid in error to him from the Local Restrictions Support Grant Scheme (LRSGS).
2. Mr S says he used the money to pay debts accrued because of Covid. He says the Council should help him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr S and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government created grant schemes for businesses required to close by the Government, as part of the management of Covid -19 transmission and infection.
8. The guidance on the scheme contained the following paragraph on what a council should do if it paid a grant in error. It said: “the Government will not accept deliberate manipulation and fraud – and any business caught falsifying their records to gain additional grant money will face prosecution and any funding issued will be subject to claw back, as may any grants paid in error”.
9. In May 2020 we issued an addendum in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19”. We said that when introducing new or adapted policies, councils should try to ensure they gave the right advice to service users. And that, even where working to new national rule changes, councils should still consider the circumstances of each case.
10. Mr S applied for a grant which the Council paid in November 2020.
11. In January 2021 the Government required businesses which offered direct in person services to close. These businesses were eligible for support grants. The Council told Mr S he qualified for another grant if his circumstances had not changed since he received the previous grant.
12. Mr S told the Council his circumstances had not changed, and the Council paid him another grant.
13. In February the Council told Mr S it had carried out an investigation which showed he did not qualify for the grant paid in January.
14. Mr S exchanged emails with the Council in which he said he did qualify. The Council asked him to provide information to prove he was still occupying his business premises in January and that his business was still trading. It says Mr S has not provided such evidence.
15. The Council says it has evidence that Mr S vacated the business premises at the end of November 2020 and the keys were returned to a letting agency. It also says the business premises was empty and unoccupied before 5 January 2021. Therefore, Mr S did not qualify for the grant.
16. It has issued invoices to Mr S demanding the repayment of the grants and advised that if he does not pay, it will start legal action to recover the money.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find fault in way the Council made its decision to recover money paid to Mr S when he was not eligible for the grant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman