Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused business grants and delayed dealing with her complaint, causing financial loss and distress. We did not investigate matters arising more than 12 months before Miss X contacted us. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making but we found fault in its communications. We recommended it provide Miss X with an apology, pay £100 for distress and uncertainty and pay £100 for time and trouble.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has wrongly refused her business grants and delayed dealing with her complaints, impacting her business and causing distress.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. Miss X contacted the Ombudsman in December 2022. This means these complaints are out of time:
• The Council’s May 2021 refusal of the Restart Grant;
• The Council’s July 2021 refusal of the Additional Restrictions Grant supply chain and;
• The Council not responding to her August 2021 query about other Additional Restrictions Grant schemes.
3. Miss X said she was unaware to contact the Ombudsman. However, I do not consider this good reason to exercise discretion as she could have sought third party advice and contacted us sooner. For clarity, we usually expect a complainant to have first completed the Council’s complaints process. However, if a council has not responded after 12 weeks we will usually accept a complaint.
4. Further, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making on grants to justify continuing an investigation. And, any failure to respond to Miss X’s query about any other scheme, did not cause significant injustice as she did not miss out any grants her business was eligible for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
9. 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

10. I spoke to Miss X and I reviewed documents provided by Miss X and the Council.
11. I gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Restart grant

12. This grant opened from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021. The Government issued guidance to councils to help them administer the grant.
13. The Government said the grant was available to businesses in the non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care or gym sectors.
14. It was to support businesses predominantly reliant on delivering in-person services.

Additional Restrictions Grant (“ARG”)

15. From November 2020 the Government provided additional funding to councils to support businesses. Each council could decide its own ARG policies, including which businesses to support. These were sometimes referred to as ARG discretionary grants because councils had discretion as to the schemes.

Council’s ARG supply chain scheme

16. The Council ran its first ARG scheme from 14 to 29 January 2021. This was open to businesses legally required to close or significantly impacted by local restrictions.

Council’s ARG Premises scheme

17. The Council ran its second ARG scheme around December 2021.
18. This scheme was open to essential retailers not mandated to close and non-rate paying businesses excluded from previous grant support.

Council’s ARG Omicron scheme

19. The Council ran its third ARG scheme in February 2022. It has provided a copy of its published policy. This said the Council would only support businesses in the following sectors:
• Hospitality, leisure or accommodation
• Hospitality supply chain
• Events and exhibitions
• Travel
• Gyms and sports businesses
• Personal Care

Principles of good administrative practice

20. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. We issued an addendum in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19”. This shows we expected similar standards from councils, even during crisis working. The following points are relevant in this case.
• The basis on which decisions are made and resources allocated, even under emergency conditions, should be open and transparent.
• Decision reasons should be clear, evidence based and where necessary explained in the particular context and circumstances of that decision.

What happened

21. Miss X owns a recruitment business.
22. In January 2021 Miss X applied to the ARG supply chain scheme on the basis she could evidence significant financial loss in trading income. The Council refused this grant in July 2021. It explained the evidence Miss X provided showed the business was making a significant loss prior to the pandemic and did not suffer adversely because of it. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision and in August 2021 it confirmed its decision remained the same. Miss X then asked for further explanation. The Council reiterated its position in December 2021 and January 2022.
23. In May 2021 Miss X applied for a Restart grant. The Council refused this grant in May 2021 as her business was not one of those eligible under the Government’s scheme.
24. In August 2021 Miss X asked the Council for information about its ARG, open until March 2022, noting this had the same criteria as the ARG supply chain. She says she received no response.
25. In December 2021 Miss X applied to the ARG premises scheme. The Council refused this grant in January 2022 as her business did not meet the eligibility criteria for the scheme. Miss X says she asked the Council for clarification but it did not provide a further explanation.
26. In January 2022 Miss X asked the Council to explain why she was ineligible for the ARG grants. She believed the Council had decided based on personal views rather than applying the published criteria. Miss X says she received no further explanation.
27. In May 2022 Miss X complained to the Council that it had wrongly rejected four of her grant applications without clear reasons.
28. The Council responded on 26 May however Miss X did not receive this and chased a response.
29. In July the Council resent its response. In summary it said:
• Under the Government guidelines recruitment/employment agencies were not eligible for the Restart Grant.
• Its criteria for the ARG supply chain grant required evidence showing a significant impact on turnover/sales as a result of COVID-19 restrictions. The documents she provided did not evidence this.
• As an employment/recruitment agency business and a registered ratepayer business she did not meet the criteria for the ARG premises scheme.
30. In August Miss X complained further:
• Government guidance did not say her business was exempt. Her business was a training provider and non-essential retail.
• She had evidenced a significant financial impact.
• She should have been supported by the ARG premises scheme as she did not benefit from other schemes.
• The Council had not mentioned ARG discretionary grants.
31. In December the Council responded, in summary:
• She did not operate an in person retail business as so was not eligible for the Restart grant.
• She did not evidence her business suffered a significant financial impact and so was not eligible for the ARG supply chain.
• Her business was not an essential retailer and she did pay business rates and so was not eligible under either category for the ARG premises scheme.
• She applied for three grants only as referred above.
• It did not uphold the complaint and she could contact the Ombudsman.
32. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.
33. The Council provided copies of each of Miss X’s grant applications and its responses to these (as referred above).
34. When I spoke to Miss X said she did not contact us sooner as she was unaware of the Ombudsman. She only knew to contact us once the Council refereed to us in its final complaint response.
35. I asked Miss X for evidence of her fourth grant application. She said there were in fact two additional grants she applied for.
• She enclosed an email from the Council dated 15 December 2021 regarding the COVID 19 business support grant CV-GEN00000. I note the email says the Council has reviewed her application and its decision remains the same; that she is not eligible for the grant. (As referred at paragraph 21).
• She also enclosed an email to the Council dated 24 August 2021 where she asked about the ARG discretionary grant. (As referred at paragraph 23).
36. I asked the Council what the reference CV-GEN00000 meant. It said this was used to respond to general enquiries about its COVID-19 grants. It provided a screenshot of its system demonstrating this.
37. In comments on a draft decision Miss X said:
• It took years to obtain a final response to her complaint and so she could not have come to the Ombudsman sooner.
• The payments recommended for time, trouble and distress are inadequate.
• She did not believe councils could administer scheme funds as they saw fit.
• She will have to close her business if she does not receive funding.
38. In comments on a draft decision the Council said:
• The rejection emails were brief because the guidance notes clearly stated the eligibility criteria; the Council did not consider it necessary to repeat them.

Findings

39. I am not investigating the Council’s decision making on the Restart grant or the Additional Restrictions Grant supply chain for reasons explained at paragraphs 2 to 4 above.
40. The documents show the Council did not give clear reasons for refusing the ARG Premises grant at the outset. This is fault. Miss X suffered uncertainty and spent time seeking clarification. This is injustice.
41. However, I am satisfied the Council gave reasons for its decision in its final complaint response. The Council did not consider Miss X’s business fell within the definition of an essential retailer and she was not a non-ratepayer as she paid business rates. Therefore, she was neither an essential retailer nor a non-ratepayer as required to get a grant under it published policy. The Council appears to have taken into account relevant information and reached a decision in line with its policy. I find no fault in its decision making.
42. I note Miss X felt the Council’s ARG Premises scheme should support her business, as she did not benefit from other grants. However, the Government allowed councils to decide themselves which businesses to support. The Council did not have to support Miss X’s business. Therefore, I cannot find fault.
43. The Council took four months to provide a stage 2 complaint response. This delay amounts to fault. Miss X spent longer in the complaint process than necessary. This is injustice.
44. I have not seen any evidence Miss X applied for a fourth grant scheme. Rather it appears Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to refuse the ARG supply chain and on occasion it responded to this using a general enquiry reference number. While Miss X asked about other schemes, I cannot see that she applied to any others. For completeness, I note Miss X’s business is not one of those listed as eligible under the Council’s ARG Omicron scheme.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice outlined above the Council should take the following actions within one month of the date of my decision:
• Provide Miss X with an apology for the faults identified.
• Pay Miss X £100 for distress and uncertainty.
• Pay Miss X £100 for time and trouble.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
47. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making but I find fault in its level of communications. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman