Summary: Mr X complained the Council sought to recover grant money from him for a small business grant he did not personally receive. He also complained the Council discriminated against him. There was fault by the Council when it awarded a grant to Mr X. However, the Council was entitled to seek recovery of the grant and was not at fault for pursuing Mr X personally. The Council was also at fault when an officer incorrectly told Mr X the Council could not provide translation services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council sought to recover grant money from him for a small business grant he did not personally receive.
2. Mr X is director of a company and leases a property to that company as well. He applied for the grant on behalf of the company. He said the Council paid the grant out into the company’s bank account, not his own.
3. The Council then said it mistakenly approved the grant and it sought to recover the money from Mr X.
4. Mr X also complained the Council discriminated against him. He does not speak, read, or write English well. He asked the Council to support him with a translator. However, he said the Council ignored his request and closed his complaint.
5. Mr X said he and his family have suffered distress and incurred time corresponding with the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
10. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Small business grants and retail, hospitality and leisure grants

12. In March 2020, the government created schemes for councils to pay grants to small businesses and retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This was because the COVID-19 restrictions affected so many of them.
13. A business’ right to a grant depends on its rateable value on the business rating list and its eligibility for certain business rate reliefs on 11 March 2020.
14. Government guidance (the guidance) states businesses receiving either small business rates relief (SBRR) or rural rates relief (RRR), with a property that has a rateable value of up to £15,000, will be eligible for a grant of £10,000.
15. The guidance confirms the grant will be paid to the person who was the listed ratepayer for the property on 11 March 2020.
16. The guidance also states later changes to the rating list, even if they were backdated to 11 March 2020, should be ignored for the purposes of eligibility.
17. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the council, compiles the rating list and decides on liabilty for business rates and rateable values. We cannot investigate complaints about the VOA’s decisions.

Equality Act

18. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
19. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
20. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
21. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

22. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint.
23. Mr X applied for a small business grant (SBG) of £10,000 on 6 April 2020. The SBG was for businesses in receipt of SBRR or RRR.
24. In his application, Mr X confirmed he was the ratepayer and gave his personal details. He also provided company details and stated he is the director.
25. Mr X confirmed the rateable value of the premises was £20,750. He also confirmed he was not currently receiving SBRR.
26. Mr X gave bank details for the grant to be paid into. The application form does not ask whether this is a personal or business bank account and Mr X did not specify this at the time. Mr X said he simply gave what information the form asked for.
27. In May 2020, the Council paid a grant of £10,000 into the bank account Mr X nominated.
28. Later in 2020, the Government told councils to review COVID-19 grants they had paid to make sure they were awarded correctly. Councils could try to recover any grants they had wrongly awarded.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X in December 2020 asking him to repay the £10,000 SBG. It said the rateable value of his business property was more than £15,000, meaning he was not eligible for the grant.
30. The Council contacted Mr X in May 2020. It said Mr X’s name was on the business rates account at the time of the grant application. It said it emailed Mr X in December 2020 to advise he was not entitled to the grant and offering a repayment plan, but heard nothing back.
31. Mr X asked the Council to explain why it awarded the grant if the company was not eligible. He also said the company was challenging the rateable value as it only rents half the business unit.
32. The Council said Mr X was not receiving SBRR so should not have received the grant.
33. Mr X asked the Council to change the name on the invoice to the company’s name. He said the grant was paid to the company, so the company is responsible for repayment.
34. The Council said it paid the grant based on who was liable for business rates at the time the SBG scheme was set up. At that time Mr X was responsible for business rates so the Council cannot amend the invoice to the company name.
35. Mr X said the Council paid the grant to the company account and the company is contracted to pay business rates under a lease agreement. He said the Council should update the invoice to the company’s name, as that is who the Council paid the grant to.
36. The Council said Mr X was liable for business rates from September 2009 to 31 March 2020 and it paid the grant when the business rates account was in Mr X’s name.
37. Mr X said he found the situation very confusing because he does not speak, read, or write English well. He needed help from his family to respond. He asked the Council to arrange a translator to contact him or to send an email in his first language.
38. An officer from the Council’s revenue team said the Council could not arrange a translator or provide the email in Mr X’s first language. They asked Mr X to confirm which correspondence did not make sense.
39. Mr X asked the Council to address the fact it paid the grant to the company in May 2020. He said at this point the company was liable for business rates. He said he was only personally liable up to March 2020, so he is not liable for a grant paid in May. Also, he said the Council paid the money to the company, so he does not have the money to pay back.
40. An officer from the Council’s revenue team said they reviewed Mr X’s grant application, and he gave his personal bank details.
41. Mr X complained in July 2022. He said the Council ignored facts and did not investigate the case properly. He said:
• He is not a business and is not running a business personally.
• He did not personally make an application for the grant and was not liable at the time the grant application was made. The application was made on 6 April 2020, when the company was liable for business rates.
• He has not personally received any money from the Council. It was paid to the company bank account.
42. Mr X also questioned why the Council could not accommodate his language needs.
43. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in September 2022. It said:
• After a review it found it should not have paid the grant. Because it paid the grant into Mr X’s bank account, he must repay it.
• It paid grants according to who was responsible for business rates on 11 March 2020. It recognised Mr X’s business rates liability ended on 31 March 2020, and it paid the grant in May 2020, but his business account was not updated until October 2020.
• Its revenue services team were wrong to say it could not arrange a translator. It said it would provide feedback to the relevant manager so appropriate action is taken.
44. The Council asked Mr X for evidence the grant was paid into a company account, rather than his own.
45. Mr X sent the Council evidence confirming it paid the grant into the company account.
46. The Council apologised for stating the grant was paid into Mr X’s personal account. However, it said Mr X remained liable because the business rates liability was in his name on 11 March 2020.

My investigation

47. Mr X told me he is the director of a company. He applied for a SBG, with the help of admin staff, in the company name.
48. Mr X said the lease agreement for the business property states the company is liable for business rates. He said this shows the company was responsible for business rates at the time of the application.
49. Mr X said the company used the grant for wages and costs, and he does not have the money to pay the Council back.
50. The Council told me it paid the SBG to Mr X as company director and he was the named ratepayer on 11 March 2020.
51. The Council said it pursued Mr X for repayment because he was the beneficiary, and it paid the grant into the account he gave.
52. The Council said Mr X raised a dispute shortly before his grant application about the rateable value of the business premises. However, he did not dispute the fact he was personally listed as the billed party. It said he only raised this on 8 October 2020.
53. The Council denies discriminating against Mr X. It said all communication was by email, where Mr X had support from family. The Council accepts it told Mr X it could not provide a translator or a copy of its reply in his first language. It said it clarified this was wrong in its complaint response and it provided feedback to the relevant manager. The Council said where someone needs translation help a manager will try to arrange for an officer to contact them. If the language needed cannot be arranged with a member of Council staff, it can look to use a third-party translation service. The Council said this shows it adheres to its equality duties and it has information about this on its website.

Analysis

54. The SBG of £10,000 was for businesses with a rateable value of £15,000 or less who were in receipt of SBRR. Neither of those criteria applied to Mr X’s company. Its rateable value exceeded £15,000 and it did not receive SBRR. Mr X confirmed both these facts in his grant application. The Council therefore should not have awarded the £10,000 grant in the first place.
55. The Council said it was instructed by Government to award grants quickly, to help businesses struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. I accept that was the case. However, the Council should still have checked whether applicants met the eligibility criteria. That did not happen with Mr X’s application, and it was clearly an error by the Council to award the grant. That was fault.
56. Government guidance for the SBG states councils were to pay the grant to the person named on the rating list on 11 March 2020. That was Mr X. I also found when Mr X applied for the SBG I April 2020 he stated he was the ratepayer.
57. I recognise there was a lease between Mr X and the company, stating the company is responsible for business rates, but the Council is not a party to this agreement. It was up to Mr X to ensure the correct details were on the rating list.
58. The details on the rating list were later changed to the company’s name, but that only went back to 1 April 2020. Mr X remains the person named on the rating list on 11 March 2020. I therefore do not find the Council at fault when it said it paid the grant for Mr X’s benefit. I also do not find the Council at fault for asking Mr X to repay the grant. The question of whether Mr X is legally liable to repay the grant is ultimately one for the courts to answer, not the Ombudsman.
59. I appreciate Mr X gave evidence confirming the Council paid the grant into the company bank account, not into his own. He therefore questioned why the Council did this if the grant was intended for his benefit. However, I found Mr X’s grant application did not state whether the bank account details were for his personal account of for the company account. The Council had no way of knowing. It simply paid out the grant into the bank account Mr X gave. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for paying the grant into the company account.
60. When disputing his personal liability to repay the grant, Mr X asked the Council to support him with a translator or by providing correspondence in another language. An officer said this was not possible. That was fault. The Council can provide this support and its website provides details of this.
61. Because the Council can provide services for people who do not speak English as their first language, and has a procedure in place for this, the Council is not at fault for failing to consider its duties under the Equality Act. I consider the issue in this case was a lack of training and knowledge by an individual officer. The Council addressed this with the officer’s manager to feed back, and I am satisfied that was a suitable response.

Injustice

62. It was inevitably distressing for Mr X when the Council asked him to repay such a substantial sum of money. I found the Council was entitled to seek recovery of incorrectly awarded grants. I also found the Council was entitled to seek recovery from Mr X directly, as he was the named ratepayer at the relevant time. However, there is no escaping the fact this situation arose because of an error by the Council. Mr X was not eligible for the SBG of £10,000. He arguably should not have applied for the grant, yet if the Council had assessed his application properly, in line with the eligibility criteria, it would have refused it and the situation could have been avoided. I therefore consider the Council is responsible for some of the distress Mr X suffered, as he incurred unnecessary time and trouble.
63. The failure of an officer failure to help Mr X with translation services caused him frustration. He had to get help from family, which took time. Mr X felt the Council closed his complaint prematurely. However, on the evidence seen, the Council properly considered Mr X’s complaint and he was able to communicate with officers, with help from his family, and he was able to access the complaint procedure. I also found the Council considered the specific points of complaint Mr X raised. I did not find the failings prevented Mr X communicating with the Council or affected the outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will write to Mr X:
• Acknowledging it incorrectly awarded him the SBG.
• Apologising for the distress which resulted from its incorrect decision.
• Apologising for failing to advise him on how to access its translation services.
65. Also within four weeks, the Council will pay Mr X £200 to recognise the time and trouble he incurred as a result of the identified faults.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

67. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council when it awarded a grant to Mr X. However, the Council was entitled to seek recovery of the grant and was not at fault for pursuing Mr X personally. There was also fault when an officer incorrectly told Mr X the Council could not provide translation services.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman