Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a business rates discount brought in to help businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the issue concerns a matter of professional judgement and there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council's decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for ‘expanded retail discount’, which reduced business rates liability for eligible businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the refusal Mr X did not qualify for a government 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’. 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. 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”.
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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the guidance but we cannot say that he is correct and the Council is wrong. The purpose of the discount and the associated grant scheme was to provide relief and funds for businesses which occupied hereditaments which were wholly or mainly being used as shops (and other eligible uses) and the Council decided that did not apply to Mr X. The decision is neither irrational nor perverse and there is no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. The law does not therefore allow me to question it. While Mr X’s MP asked the Council to use its discretion to award him the discount and grant the Council had no discretion to disapply the criteria to grant Mr X’s applications when it found he was not eligible.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman