Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s business not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. This is mainly because is not enough evidence fault by the Council caused Mr X to be without the grant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council told him by email in June 2021 there would be no more Additional Restrictions Grants (ARGs) and did not send any more notifications of such grants. He says he therefore no longer checked the Council’s website for such grants, so he only learned about further grants in 2022 after the application deadline. Mr X also complains the Council refused to let him apply late, although he contacted it before the final date for paying grants. He is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint-handling. Mr X, who had received previous ARGs, says not receiving the 2022 grant worsened his business’s COVID-19-related financial problems and cause him time and trouble.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In June 2021 Mr X asked a Council officer if there would be a further round of the ARG scheme. The officer’s email reply said:

‘Highly unlikely – as I look at the number of applications to the amount of funding left, I think it will all go. I would work on the assumption we won’t – unless BEIS [the Government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy] step in and provide us more allocation which as yet hasn’t been forthcoming.’

8. That email was accurate at the time. It did not say there would definitely be no further grants. It outlined circumstances in which there might be more grants. It did not commit to tell Mr X of any change. In the winter of 2020/2021, the new Omicron variant emerged and the Government announced a new grant scheme. Those were new developments, widely known at the time. So I do not consider there was any fault in the Council’s June 2021 email that made the Council responsible for Mr X not knowing of the changed circumstances and new grant over six months later.
9. Mr X’s business had received various COVID-19-related business grants from the Council in 2020 and 2021. Mr X says he usually received an email, he thinks from a service he subscribed to (not necessarily provided by the Council) when there was a new grant to apply for, but he got no such email about the 2022 grant. I have not seen such previous notifications. The Council has not suggested it provided such a service; indeed, it said it had no duty to tell potential recipients by email, instead publicising new grants on its website and by other means. So I have not seen evidence the Council was at fault for Mr X not receiving such a notification about the 2022 grant.
10. The closing date for applications was 28 February 2022, with the Council having to pay out all the grants by 31 March 2022. Mr X learned of the new grants and contacted the Council on 14 March. On 25 March the Council said the application date had passed. On 29 March Mr X explained he had not applied because of the Council’s June 2021 email and because he had not received notification of the new scheme. He asked the Council if, in the circumstances, it would use its discretion to consider his business for a grant. The Council did not reply before 31 March. Its later position was that it had not considered Mr X because he had not applied on time (by 28 February).
11. The Council had no duty to consider any business that had not applied before 28 February. As explained above, it was not the Council’s fault Mr X had not applied in time. In the circumstances, I do not fault it for not agreeing to consider Mr X’s business for a grant before 31 March. There was no fault in the time taken to reply to Mr X’s emails in March 2022. Nor did that in itself disadvantage Mr X significantly, as the Council did not agree to consider his business late.
12. Mr X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his formal complaint about the matter. 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.
13. Mr X says the Council has not dealt properly with his data subject access request. The Information Commissioner can deal with such matters and can make binding orders on the Council if appropriate. The Ombudsman does not have that power. Also, as we are not investigating the substantive complaint (about Mr X not getting a grant), it would be a disproportionate use of resources for us to investigate the information request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman