Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not resolve problems with its online application for business grants resulting in Ms Y missing out on a grant. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not resolve problems with its online application for business grants meaning Ms Y could not apply before the deadline. Ms Y has missed out on the grant and incurred costs borrowing funds to support her business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Government guidance

8. In December 2021 the Government introduced the Omicron Hospitality and Leisure Grant to support businesses struggling due to the rise of the Omicron variant.
9. Government guidance said it would provide funding to councils from January 2022. The scheme would close for applications on 18 March 2022 and councils must make all final payments by 31 March 2022. The Government would not reimburse councils for any payments made after 31 March 2022.
10. A one off grant of up to £6000 was payable depending on the rateable value of the business.
11. A hospitality business was one whose main function was to provide a venue for the consumption and sale of food and drink. This did not include food kiosks and businesses whose main service (generating 50% or more of income) was a takeaway.

What happened

12. On 18 March 2022 Mr X emailed the Council to say Ms Y could not apply for a grant as its website said “no schemes available”.
13. On the same date the Council replied. It confirmed it had made some changes to the system and Ms Y should now be able to apply. It provided a weblink to the application and said the deadline was midnight of 18 March. The Council also explained Ms Y would need to upload evidence to confirm over 50% of her income was from sales dining in, rather than from takeaway sales, to meet eligibility requirements. However, Ms Y could apply by the deadline and provide the supporting evidence the following week if needed.
14. On 21 March Mr X emailed the Council to say the link provided had not worked.
15. Mr X and the Council exchanged further correspondence.
16. The Council said, in summary:
• It resolved the technical issue yet received no application from Mr X or Ms Y before the deadline.
• Staff were monitoring emails until 8pm on 18 March in case anyone should need help applying.
• It did not receive any email from Mr X or Ms Y before the deadline to say the link provided had not worked.
• Other businesses successfully applied online the evening of 18 March.
• The link would not have worked once the deadline had passed.
• It had no discretion to allow late applications and could not pay grant.
17. Mr X said, in summary:
• He and Ms Y tried to apply before the deadline but the link did not work.
• That others could apply was not relevant as the issue was with Ms Y’s account.
• The Council had not said anyone would be available until 8pm to help if needed.
• The Council should have had staff available to help up to the deadline.
• He contacted the Council the first working day after the application deadline as he assumed the Council would not be available before then. The Council’s website says its opening hours are usually until 5pm.
• He had contacted the relevant Government department. It said the Council had discretion to accept late applications and, it should have offered an alternative way to apply if there were problems with its online system.
18. When I spoke to Mr X he explained the Council only offered an online application. When this did not work they contacted the Council. The Council said Ms Y’s property was not listed on its website. The Council then confirmed it had entered her property onto its system and provided a weblink. Ms Y was very busy on 18 March but she did try to apply again that evening. The weblink still did not work. They drafted an email for the Council but decided not to send it at that time as the Council’s offices would be closed. They thought it would be better to email the Council first thing on Monday so their email was at the top of the Council’s inbox.

Findings

19. Government guidance said the scheme closed on 18 March 2022. It did not say councils had no discretion to accept late applications. If anyone could not apply in time because of a council’s fault, we would expect that council to remedy its fault by accepting a late application.
20. Where it is one person’s word against the other, it is often not possible to reach a finding on what happened. The Council maintains it resolved the issue with its I.T system and Ms Y could have applied for a grant in time. However, Mr X maintains the issue was not resolved and they were unable to apply. Given the conflict in evidence, I cannot find, even on balance, that the Council failed to fix any problems with its system so preventing any application. I am unable to find fault.
21. I consider it is not proportionate to further investigate if the Council resolved the issue. This is because it is unlikely the Council can now evidence the system would have accepted any application from Ms Y at the time. And because even if there was fault by the Council, this did not cause any injustice.
22. I say this because Ms Y could have contacted the Council to seek help or an alternative way to apply before the deadline if she wished. I note Ms Y thought the Council’s office would be closed, however it remains she could have emailed the Council; this was a missed opportunity. As Ms Y could have taken action to avoid any injustice, I cannot say she missed out on a grant as a direct result of any fault by the Council.
23. For the sake of completeness, I note we would expect a council to offer an alternative means of application if requested. However, I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X or Ms Y asked to apply by other means before the deadline.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I find no evidence of fault causing injustice in how the Council handled Ms Y’s business grant application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman