Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for a COVID-19-related business grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his application for a COVID-19-related business grant or with his formal complaint about the matter. He says this worsened his business’ financial problems and caused stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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”.
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our decision on Mr X’s previous complaint found no fault with the Council refusing Mr X the business rates expanded retail discount (ERD) and a retail, hospitality and leisure grant (RHLG). We shall not revisit those points now.
7. The present complaint is about a discretionary grant (DG) Mr X reports he applied for on the Council’s website in June 2020. He says the Council did not give him a decision on that application. The Council says it has no record of receiving such an application. The Council asked Mr X to show it the acknowledgement email it says it would have sent him if it had received the discretionary grant application in June 2020. Mr X says he received no such email for the DG application either. He also says he received no such email for his earlier RHLG application, although we know the Council received that application.
8. As neither the Council nor Mr X has any evidence the Council received the DG application, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here. It is unlikely investigation could reach a clear enough view, on balance, that Mr X submitted this application rather than, for example, thinking he had done so but not in fact submitting it fully. The absence of acknowledgement emails on the DG and RHLG applications is not decisive either. For instance, such emails might have gone to the ‘spam’ or ‘junk’ email folder. Even if the Council failed to send such emails, it would still not necessarily follow that Mr X had fully submitted a DG application. We know the Council received and acted on two other grant applications from Mr X: for the RHLG earlier in 2020 and, more recently, for an additional restrictions grant (ARG). So we cannot conclude there was a pattern of the Council failing to act on applications.
9. Overall, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this point. Further investigation is unlikely to be fruitful.
10. The Council accepts it did not deal properly with Mr X’s formal complaint about this matter. It apologised and offered him £150. I consider that adequately recognised Mr X’s avoidable uncertainty and some time and trouble chasing the complaint. Mr X wants a larger payment as says he incurred more debts, including business rates, while awaiting the Council’s reply and he would have left his premises earlier had he known the Council’s position sooner. However, the Council never guaranteed Mr X a grant payment or any business rates discount. Mr X took his own risk in deciding to continue occupying the premises. Any financial loss he incurred from doing so did not result directly from the Council’s actions. Also, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. For these reasons we shall not investigate this point.
11. If Mr X is having difficulty paying the business rates he now owes, he can ask the Council to consider reducing or even waiving the debt. The Council has discretion to do this and should consider such requests properly, but it is for the Council to decide whether to agree any reduction. (Local Government Finance Act 1988, section 49)

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman