Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how much grant Mr X’s business received. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s accountant complains the Council did not properly consider government guidance and a change to the rateable value of Mr X’s business property. The accountant argues this means the Council should have increased Mr X’s retail, hospitality and leisure grant (RHLG) from £10,000 to £25,000 or credited the difference to Mr X’s business rates account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint partly 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. 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))
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s business was eligible for a retail, hospitality and leisure grant (RHLG). Government guidance was that eligible businesses with a rateable value “up to and including £15,000” would get a grant of £10,000. Those with a rateable value “over £15,000 and less than £51,000” would receive £25,000. The relevant rateable value was the value at 11 March 2020.
8. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and changes the rating list, including deciding a property’s rateable value. The VOA can change a property’s rateable value and can backdate such changes to take account of changes to the property.
9. The Government guidance on the RHLG covered such situations at paragraphs 42 and 43, saying:

“42. Any changes to the rating list (rateable value or to the hereditament) after the 11 March 2020 including changes which have been backdated to this date should be ignored for the purposes of eligibility.”

“43. Local authorities are not required to adjust, pay or recover grants where the rating list is subsequently amended retrospectively to the 11 March 2020.”

10. On 11 March 2020, the rating list showed Mr X’s property as having a rateable value below £15,000. So the Council gave a £10,000 RHLG. Later, in 2021, the VOA changed the rateable value to more than £15,000 and backdated that change to a date before 11 March 2020, seemingly to take account of changes that had occurred then.
11. Mr X’s accountant argues Mr X’s business is therefore entitled to a RHLG of £25,000, not £10,000. The accountant argues the government guidance only said councils should ignore rateable value changes that were backdated precisely to 11 March 2020 and did not say councils should also ignore changes backdated to before 11 March 2020. The Council disagrees and says it took advice from central Government that supported its disregarding the change to the rating list.
12. The guidance did not say changes backdated to 11 March 2020 were the only changes the Council should ignore. The sentence in paragraph 42 of the guidance must be read as whole. It said any changes to the rating list after 11 March 2020 should be ignored. The use of the word “including” means “changes which have been backdated to this date” were one type of change councils should ignore, not the only change councils should ignore. Paragraph 43 does not override that.
13. The change to Mr X’s premises’ rateable value was a change to the rating list after 11 March 2020. Therefore it was a change the guidance said the Council should ignore for the purposes of RHLG eligibility. This is consistent with other councils’ decisions we have seen. It is also consistent with the fact that the RHLG scheme closed on 30 September 2020, so the government did not envisage councils having to revisit decisions and change grant amounts after then, potentially for many years, whenever a rating list change backdated to before 11 March 2020 takes a property’s rateable value above or below £15,000.
14. The Council’s decision was based on the government guidance. I have explained why I have not criticised the Council’s application of that guidance. The Council also considered Mr X’s accountant’s arguments and took advice from the relevant Government department. Therefore I consider the Council reached its decision properly. So, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the Council’s decision, albeit Mr X’s accountant disagrees and interprets the guidance differently.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman