Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide clear information about what parts of his car washing business were required to closed and is wrongly seeking to recover COVID-19 business grants it paid to him. Mr X said the repayment of the grants would cause financial hardship. The Council says the business has dissolved and so it is no longer seeking recovery of the grants. On this basis, we will discontinue our investigation as Mr X is no longer suffering a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide clear information about what parts of his car washing business were required to closed and is wrongly seeking to recover COVID-19 business grants it paid to him.
2. Mr X says repayment of the grants will cause financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X runs a car washing business. He operates from a garage premises and his business involves both a hand washing service and self-operated jet wash. Mr X closed the hand car wash when further lockdown restrictions were introduced in December 2020. The self-operated jet wash remained open. Mr X says that he thought this was allowed because the garage and petrol pumps were open. Mr X says the Council never explained to him that the jet wash had to close.
7. The police visited the business premises on 15 January 2021. A photograph was taken showing a man using the jet wash to clean his bike. Mr X was not present on site so the police spoke to another employee. They explained that as the car wash was not fully automated it should be closed. The Council says the police visited again later in the afternoon and witnessed the car wash still open and operating.
8. The Council served a prohibition notice on 18 January 2021. Mr X immediately closed the self-operated jet wash which remained closed until restrictions were lifted in April 2021.
9. On 29 October 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X saying that after conducting a review of all COVID-19 business grants, it concluded he had been incorrectly awarded grant payments totalling £3,811.43. It says the reason for this was that his claim submitted on 23 November 2020 stated the business had closed but it was later notified the business was still open. It said non-compliant businesses were deemed ineligible under the Local Restrictions Support Grant scheme and so the payments must be returned.
10. Mr X complained about the failure of the Council to notify him the business had to close in December 2020 and about its decision to recover grants. On receipt of his complaint, I made enquiries to the Council. The Council responded saying the recovery action for repayment of the grant had ceased as Mr X’s business was dissolved via voluntary strike off on 11 January 2022. It said Mr X had no personal liability for business rates or the repayment of the grants.
11. As the Council has confirmed it has ceased its recovery action, I am not persuaded Mr X continues to suffer an injustice significant enough to warrant continuing with this investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will now discontinue my investigation as the situation has changed and Mr X no longer has a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman