Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a small business grant. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a grant for small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. He wants the Council to award him the £10,000 grant.

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’.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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”. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

7. Mr X’s business occupies two hereditaments (business premises) in the Council’s area.
8. In early 2020, in response to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the first national lockdown the government announced a small business grant fund scheme. Mr X applied for grants for each of the hereditaments.
9. Eligibility for the scheme depended on a hereditament’s eligibility for small business rates relief as well as certain other criteria.
10. Mr X receives small business rates relief for his main hereditament (Property A) but the relief can only be applied to a single hereditament. He does not therefore receive small business rates for his second hereditament (Property B). The Council therefore awarded Mr X a grant for Property A but refused his application for a grant for Property B.
11. Mr X believes the Council misapplied the criteria for the scheme. He argues that because small business rates relief is awarded to a business rather than to a hereditament the Council should not have considered his circumstances when determining his application for a grant.

Back to top

My assessment

12. The small business grant scheme operated until August 2020 and Mr X did not complain to us about the Council’s decision until January 2022. His complaint therefore appears late.
13. However even if the complaint had been raised in-time the law does not allow us to question the Council’s judgement or decision unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was reached; we are not an appeal body.
14. The Council has interpreted the eligibility criteria in a way which is consistent with a plain reading of the guidance and I see no basis for us to criticise its decision.
15. The guidance clearly links eligibility for the small business grant scheme with eligibility for small business rates relief and Section 16 (later Section 17) provides further clarification on the point. This states eligible hereditaments are those to which:
16. “a. Section 43 (4B)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1998 (small business rate relief) applied, and
17. b. The Value of E (as defined in article 3 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Reliefs, Thresholds and Amendment) (England) Order 2017, SI 2017/102) was greater than 1.”
18. Because Property B is a second hereditament paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Reliefs, Thresholds and Amendment) (England) Order 2017 do not apply and the hereditament does not qualify for either of the exemptions listed. It therefore falls under Paragraph (4) of Article 3 which states “In any case not falling within paragraph (2) or (3), E shall be 1.”
19. The hereditament does not therefore meet the requirement set out at Paragraph 16/17 of the guidance and quoted at Paragraph 15 above.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman