Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him that he would not need to apply for a COVID-19 business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly advised him about the need to apply for a COVID-19 business grant. As a result he missed the deadline for the scheme.

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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

Background

6. The Government made money available for local authorities to award ‘Additional Restrictions Grants’ (ARGs) to businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic at various stages between 2020 and 2022. These were in addition to the earlier grants covering the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, and certain small businesses.
7. Mr X qualified for one of the earlier ARGs and says he contacted the Council to enquire about another grant when it was announced. He says the Council told him grants would be awarded and paid automatically to businesses who had received an ARG in the past, but he did not hear anything. He contacted the Council by email on 8 February 2022 with his company details but the Council told him the scheme had closed.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council confirms the department which deals with enquiries about business rates and grant schemes operates on an ‘email only’ basis. It has no record of any telephone call from Mr X nor to show that it contacted Mr X to discuss the ARG scheme, other than confirming the scheme had closed. It also confirms that even if Mr X had applied it is unlikely he would have received the grant. This is because Mr X’s company was not a ‘priority business’ for the scheme, which was focused on helping businesses in the hospitality, leisure, travel and personal care sectors.
9. In these circumstances there is not enough evidence to show, on balance, that Mr X was wrongly advised or that any wrong advice caused him to miss out on the grant.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman