Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his business a Restart Grant and retail rates relief, causing financial loss. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council decided to class his business as a wholesaler despite his evidence to the contrary. He says he has missed out on a Restart Grant and retail rates relief as a result. Further, the Council’s enforcement action to recover payments is tarnishing his business’ image.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
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. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Restart grant

7. In March 2021 the Government introduced the Restart Grant to support businesses as it eased restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
8. Government guidance said the grant applied to non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care and gym businesses.
9. A non-essential retail business was defined as a business used mainly or wholly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services by the public. This excluded wholesalers.

Retail rates relief

10. Since 2019/20 the government has provided a Business Rates Retail Discount for retail properties. In 2020/21 it expanded this on include the leisure and hospitality sectors; the Expanded Retail Discount.
11. Government guidance said eligible businesses included shops wholly or mainly used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public. Businesses not eligible included those not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public.
12. It was up to councils to decide if a business was eligible, having regard to the Government guidance.

What happened

13. In April 2021 Mr X applied for a Restart Grant as a non essential retail business.
14. The Council told Mr X it rejected his application because the scheme excluded wholesalers. The Council’s internal records at the time of this decision referred to Companies House listing the business as a wholesaler and online images appealing to show a wholesale business large warehouse type property.
15. Mr X disputed the Council’s decision and said he ran a retail business.
16. The Council told Mr X it had carried out checks at Companies House. However, Mr X should send the following documents to show it was a retail business:
• Photographs of the exterior of the property, including accessibility for customers and photos of the interior of the property.
• Evidence of retail activity such as trade invoices, trade receipts, merchant copies of customer receipts.
17. Mr X sent the Council photos as requested and a customer trade invoice.
18. The Council wrote to Mr X, refusing a grant. It said the business appeared to be for "Traders Only", and signage outside the shop said "Wholesale". It found the evidence he provided was not sufficient to prove retail activity. The Council’s internal records at the time of this decision show it gained this information from online images of the business dated November 2020.
19. Mr X told the Council his accountant had classed his business as a wholesaler in error and he had since corrected this with HMRC and Companies House.
20. The Council said the information it held appeared to show the business was wholesale. However, to assess the application again it asked Mr X to provide:
• Merchant copies of till receipts for card sales.
• Till receipts of cash sales.
• Images of the sales area of the shop.
• Images showing accessibility for customers.
• A link to his website if he had one.
21. In reply Mr X said:
• he did not have a till and so had no till receipts; he invoiced customers;
• he had already provided images of the sales area and access; and
• he did not have a website.
22. The Council said its decision remained the same. It found the information Mr X had provided was not sufficient to show retail activity.
23. Mr X disputed this decision.
24. In June 2021 the Council said it had revisited the information provided. It found his photos showed evidence of a wholesale warehouse and noted website reviews referred to the business as "brilliant wholesalers". Its decision remained the same.
25. Mr X said his business did not have a website and he referred again to updated information held by HMRC and Companies House.
26. The Council treated this as a complaint. In its stage 1 response it said:
• A website existed with his business details.
• Customers could obtain quotes online suggesting his business did not rely on sales to the public.
• A customer review referred to him as a “brilliant wholesaler”.
• He had no till system.
• Photos showed he was operating mainly as a wholesaler.
• On review of all elements it was not satisfied he was a retailer. It accepted he may have members of the public visiting the business from time to time but this was not the main part of his business.
• It remained satisfied Mr X did not qualify for a Restart Grant.
27. In November 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X further to his phone call.
28. (In response to enquiries the Council said it had reviewed its records and could not see any notes regarding a telephone call in November 2021. Further, it did not keep call recordings.)
29. In its correspondence to Mr X the Council said it decided on the Restart Grant in June and the scheme was now closed. It sent business rates bills to the address on file. It did not award retail rates relief based on the information it held.
30. In December Mr X complained to the Council because it was chasing payment for business rates. He said his business was a retail furniture showroom and so should be exempt from rates. His business remained the same and previously got rates relief; the only difference was a name change. Further, that he had provided evidence in support of a Restart Grant that the Council ignored. Mr X’s accountant then sent a letter to the Council confirming his business was a retail outlet selling household goods.
31. In its stage 1 response the Council said:
• It could not comment on the previous liability for business rates due to the General Data Protection Regulations as it was not in his name.
• It issued demands for payment of business rates, notices then a summons. The court granted a liability order in September 2021.
• It had reviewed its decision on rates relief and was satisfied it was correct.
32. Mr X disputed the Council’s response. He said online images of the business that said “traders only” were taken years ago of a previous business. Further his accountant had written to the Council confirming his position. Yet despite all the information the Council decided based on some online images.
33. In its stage 2 response the Council said:
• The online image was dated November 2020.
• It had also reviewed the business website’ and the current signage above the shop which referred to a “wholesale” business.
• It was reasonable to conclude the business was not wholly or mainly a shop.
• It sent letters to the business’ registered address correctly.
• It did not uphold the complaint.
• He could go to the Ombudsman.
34. Mr X sent a further response to the Council asserting it had ignored all his evidence and it could not rely on online images of the business. It also asked the Council to explain why it accepted his previous business was retail yet not his current business which was the same excepting its name.
35. The Council spoke to Mr X by phone and confirmed he could contact the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.

Findings

36. I cannot question whether the Council’s decisions are right or wrong simply because Mr X disagrees. Rather I must consider whether the Council followed a proper decision making process. That is whether it took account of relevant information and evidence and decided in line with relevant law and policy.
37. The documents show the Council considered the evidence Mr X provided and also information it had gathered. It decided the business was not used wholly or mainly for sales to the public, rather it was a wholesaler. The Council then refused a Restart Grant because such businesses were not eligible. I am satisfied this decision was in line with the Government guidance.
38. Mr X says the Council ignored his evidence. However, the documents show the Council had sight of and took account of his evidence, but this did not change its opinion of whether he was a retailer or wholesaler. It is not within my remit to say the Council’s opinion of the evidence Mr X provided is right or wrong.
39. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making on whether to award Mr X a Restart Grant.
40. The Council did not initially award retail rates relief to Mr X’s business given its decision this was not a retail business. I am satisfied the Council’s decision was in line with the Government guidance; that relief only applied to retail businesses.
41. It is not in dispute the Council sent correspondence seeking payment of business rates to the address held on file. I find no fault in it doing so. Upon Mr X disputing liability, the Council addressed his complaint and explained again why it did not consider his business to be retail. The Council gave reasons for its decision with reference to the evidence and it reached a decision in line with Government guidance. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
42. Mr X says the Council’s decision was contrary to its decision to award rates relief to his previous business. However, a decision reached by the Council in the past has no bearing on whether it followed the correct process in this case. I will not investigate the Council’s earlier decision because it appears Mr X was not the ratepayer and because any fault in the Council awarding relief did not cause injustice to the ratepayer.
43. Mr X also maintains the Council ignored evidence he provided. However, the documents show the Council had sight of and took account of Mr X’s evidence before reaching a decision. I cannot find fault simply because Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view of the evidence.
44. The Council was entitled to take enforcement action to recover the outstanding rates bill once the court issued a liabilty order. I find no fault in it doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no fault in the Council’s decision making on Mr X’s requests for a Restart Grant and retail rates relief.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman