Summary: Mr X said he abandoned a COVID-19 grant application as a result of a pop-up instruction during the online application process. We do not have evidence to show the exact wording of this instruction and so we are unable to conclude there was fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he missed out on COVID-19 grant funding as a result of misleading information during the application process.
2. Mr X says the business has suffered financial difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Small Business Grant Fund
7. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses. These included the Small Business Grant Fund (SBGF).
8. To receive funding from the SBGF a business had to be in receipt of small business rate relief (SBRR) (or rural rates relief) on 11 March 2020. Eligible businesses would receive a grant of £10,000.

Local Restrictions Support Grant (Closed) (LRSG)

9. The Government provided support to businesses forced to close during the second national lockdown from 5 November to 2 December 2020. This was later extended to cover the third national lockdown from 5 January to 31 March 2021.
10. Eligible businesses were those required to close in line with Government restrictions. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 sets out which businesses had to close by law. This included non-essential retail, leisure, personal care, sports facilities and hospitality businesses.
11. The guidance for this grant required businesses to submit an application.

Key facts

12. Mr X and his wife run a beauty business from a premises in Slough. Following the first COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, the Council paid a small business grant of £10,000. There was no requirement to submit an application to receive this grant.
13. Mr X says that in early 2021, he went online to apply for the LRSG. He says that as he started to fill out the online form a pop-up appeared which said that anyone who had received the first grant would receive any subsequent grants automatically and that continuing to complete the application could delay the payment. Mr X said that as a result he immediately abandoned the application.
14. The Council says that as Mr X never submitted an application for the LRSG, it was unable to make any payments. It believes Mr X misunderstood the warning which was related to the LRSG only.
15. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council on 24 March 2022. He says that he had previously complained in November 2021 via his MP. Mr X said he had not misinterpreted the online information as he had received the first grant and the instruction was clear.
16. The Council responded saying that the grant initially received was the small business grant. It said that a new set grants became available later in 2020 and businesses were required to make an application. It said during this time the lockdown was further extended and further grant schemes were opened. The Council explained that government guidance allowed it to award additional grants if an application for the LRSG had already been received and this is what the warning explained.
17. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure but was unable to provide any further evidence to support his complaint. As a result the Council maintained its position and no grant was paid.

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman bases his decisions on evidence and does not criticise a council unless there is evidence to show it was at fault. In this case there is agreement between Mr X and the Council on some points but disagreement on others. Both accept that Mr X did not submit an application for the LRSG but disagree on the reasons why. Both accept there was information during the online application process advising not to continue if a previous grant award had been made but there is disagreement about the precise wording.
19. So it is clear that the way to determine the facts in this case would be to see the exact wording from the Council’s online application process. Enquiries have been made to the Council but it has been unable to provide this. It says the application is no longer live and so has been removed from its website.
20. Both the Council and ourselves have tried to recreate the webpage using an online service called the “Wayback Machine”. This is a digital archive of the world wide web and allows the user to go “back in time” and view websites as they were at a particular point in time. Unfortunately, this has not been successful and we have been unable to recreate the online application form as it was when Mr X completed it.
21. As it stands, there is no evidence to show exactly what the pop-up stated when Mr X abandoned his online application for the LRSG. In the absence of clear evidence to show the exact wording, I am unable to take the view that there has been fault by the Council in this case. In reaching this view, I am not accepting the Council’s version of the wording or rejecting Mr X’s version. I appreciate this will be a disappointing outcome for Mr X but I am unable to find fault and make recommendations unless there is evidence to show the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman