Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council asking Mrs X to repay a business grant. The Council has done enough to remedy any injustice caused by fault on its part. Personal injury and defamation are more appropriately for the courts.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council wrongly asked her to repay a business grant without first checking its understanding with her. She says this caused anxiety, she feared bankruptcy as she could not afford to repay the grant, and she had to pursue the matter with the Council. Mrs X mentions mental health impacts and wondered if the matter might have affected her physical health, as she needed to have an operation. Mrs X says the Council accused her of deception, which she argues was defamatory.
2. Mrs X also complained to the Ombudsman about a licensing matter. Paragraph 13 below explains why I have not dealt with that point at this time.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The government gave councils funding to pay restart grants to some businesses affected by the COVID-19 restrictions. The Council gave Mrs X’s business a grant. I understand that later, on 11 October 2021, the Council told Mrs X she had not been eligible for the grant and would have to repay it. Mrs X challenged that and provided more information. On 18 October the Council changed its position, so Mrs X did not have to repay the grant.
9. The Council accepts it should have asked Mrs X to clarify any queries it had about her eligibility before making a decision and should have considered how a repayment demand might affect the business. The Council apologised, says it discussed these points with relevant staff, and offered Mrs X £150.
10. Being told she was not eligible and must repay the grant was undoubtedly alarming and difficult for Mrs X and she went to the effort of pursuing the matter with the Council. However, I note the matter was resolved relatively promptly. In the circumstances, the Council’s apology and offer to pay £150 is adequate and in line with what Ombudsman would expect to put right any injustice resulting from the Council’s fault. The Council speaking to staff about lessons to learn is also an appropriate response. Investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to result in significantly different recommendations.
11. Mrs X says the consequences might have been more serious had she not questioned the Council’s position and had she gone bankrupt if she had had to repay the grant. However, Mrs X did query the Council’s decision, as we would expect a prudent business to do if it thought a significant decision might be incorrect. I cannot speculate about, or seek a remedy for, points that did not actually happen.
12. Any suggestion the Council’s actions damaged Mrs X’s physical or mental health is effectively a claim of personal injury, so the restriction in paragraph 5 applies. The same is true of the claim the Council defamed Mrs X, which the Council denies as it says it did not accuse her of deception. Those are not straightforward matters legally. I consider they are more appropriately for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide. It would be reasonable to take these points to court.
13. Mrs X also complained to the Ombudsman about a licensing matter involving the Council. That matter is separate from the grant complaint and has not completed the Council’s complaints procedure, so we shall not consider it currently.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the grant because the Council has done enough to remedy any injustice caused by fault on its part. Questions of personal injury and defamation are more appropriately for the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman