Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to award him grants and reliefs from business rates in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has billed him for business rates for empty commercial premises and has failed to award him grants and reliefs available to businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

5. 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”.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is a commercial landlord. His tenant served notice and vacated a property he owns during the COVID-19 pandemic and Mr X could not find an immediate replacement.
7. The Council applied its three-month empty property exemption meaning Mr X did not have to pay business rates for the first three months the premises were empty. But the exemption then expired and Mr X became liable for business rates in full. The Council has now obtained a liability order for outstanding business rates, showing the court agrees Mr X is liable.
8. Mr X believes he was entitled to grants and reliefs available to small businesses to help them deal with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. He did not apply but believes the Council should have awarded the grants and reliefs automatically or should have written to him to tell him to apply.
9. There was no duty for the Council to make businesses individually aware of the national schemes available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Councils generally published information about the various schemes on websites, social media and in printed newsletters and it was for business-owners to decide which they may be eligible for and to apply for them.
10. However, the grants and reliefs available were aimed at occupied premises being used for one of several specified purposes. Premises which remained empty and were not being used did not qualify. Mr X would not therefore have been entitled to the ‘expanded retail discount’, which cleared businesses rates liability for a large number of businesses, or any of the major grant schemes. If he felt he did qualify it would have been for him to apply to the Council and to challenge any refusal. But the grant schemes available at the time Mr X’s premises were empty have now closed and no further funding is available; we would not therefore say the Council should consider applications from Mr X for them now.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman