Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. The evidence suggests the Council was not at fault for refusing the grant.

The complaint

1. Mr Y, an accountant, complains on behalf of his client Mr X that the Council delayed dealing with his enquiry about a COVID-19-related business grant and refused to give the £10,000 grant. He says this caused financial loss.

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. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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 and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In March 2020, the Government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of those businesses. A business’ right to a grant depended on its being on the business rating list on 11 March 2020 and meeting certain other criteria. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list.
8. Government guidance stated changes to the VOA rating list after 11 March 2020, even if such changes were backdated to 11 March 2020, did not entitle a business to a grant. A council could only make an exception if, on 11 March 2020, it was already ‘factually clear’ to the Council that the rating list was inaccurate for a particular address.
9. Mr X has run a business at the relevant property for several years. However, on 11 March 2020, the property was still treated by the VOA as a residential property, for which Mr X was paying council tax. It was not on the VOA rating list. Mr X and Mr Y only contacted the Council about the business at the property in June 2020, when enquiring about small business grants.
10. The Council apologised for delaying dealing with the matter after June 2020. The VOA later decided the property was a business, not residential, so deleted it from the council tax list and added it to the rating list, backdating the change to before 11 March 2020. This resulted in the Council refunding council tax Mr X had paid. The Council did not pay a small business grant because the property had not been on the rating list on 11 March 2020.
11. The Council could only award a small business grant if:
1. On 11 March 2020, the business was on the rating list and met the other criteria, or
2. On 11 March 2020 the Council was already ‘factually clear’ the rating list was inaccurate for this address. The point here is not whether the rating list was inaccurate on 11 March 2020 but whether, on 11 March 2020, the Council knew the rating list was inaccurate.
12. On point a), on 11 March 2020 the property was not on the rating list. So the Council could not award a grant on that basis.
13. On point b), the evidence suggests on 11 March 2020 Mr X and Mr Y had not yet told the Council’s business rates section the property was used for a business. So on that date the Council had no reason to believe the rating list was wrong in respect of that address.
14. The later change to the rating list and the backdating of that change to before 11 March 2020 did not make the business eligible for a grant, as paragraph 8 explained. The refund of council tax was a separate matter and did not make the business eligible for a grant.
15. The Council’s refusal to pay a grant was based on the government’s guidance and the information the Council had at the relevant time. So that decision appears properly reached. Therefore, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the decision. So I do not propose to fault the Council for not awarding a grant.
16. Mr Y says if the Council had not delayed, the VOA would have added the property to the rating list before 30 September 2020, when the small business grant scheme ended. However, that would have made no difference to Mr X’s eligibility. Mr X was not eligible because of the circumstances on 11 March 2020, as I have explained. So he would not have got a grant even had the Council dealt promptly with his enquiry in June 2020. Many businesses were refused grants for this reason before 30 September 2020. Therefore, while the Council’s delay caused some uncertainty and chasing, it did not affect the grant position. So the Council’s apology for the delay is a suitable remedy for this point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there was no fault in the Council refusing the grant. The Council’s apology is enough remedy for its delay dealing with the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman