Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a COVID-19-related business grant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to pay the grant. The law prevents us considering the court action.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not give her business an Omicron Hospitality and Leisure Grant. She also complains about recovery action against her for unpaid business rates. She says this left her without financial help for her business, she received a liability order and suffered stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
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 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant. I viewed relevant rating list entries online.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Omicron grant

8. A business’ right to the Omicron Hospitality and Leisure Grant depended on its being on the business rating list on 30 December 2021. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list.
9. Government guidance stated changes to the VOA rating list after 30 December 2021, even if such changes were backdated to that date (or earlier), did not entitle a business to a grant. A council could only make an exception if, on 30 December 2021, it was already ‘factually clear’ to the Council that the rating list was inaccurate for a particular address.
10. Therefore, the Council could only award Miss X a grant if:
1. On 30 December 2021, the business was on the rating list and met the other criteria, or
2. On 30 December 2021 the business was not on the rating list, but the Council was ‘factually clear’ the rating list was inaccurate for this address. The point here is not whether the rating list was inaccurate on 30 December 2021 but whether, on that date, the Council knew the rating list was inaccurate.
11. On point a), on 30 December 2021 the address was not on the rating list. A similar address had previously been on the rating list, but had been removed shortly before 30 December 2021. So the Council could not award a grant under point a).
12. On point b), the Council has given Miss X details of various correspondence between it, Miss X and the VOA about various addresses connected to Miss X. There is no indication that, on 30 December 2021, the Council had any information suggesting the rating list as it appeared on that date was wrong in respect of the relevant address. The Council has given Miss X reasons for its position here.
13. Some time after 30 December 2021, the rating list was changed to add the address of Miss X’s business. The addition was backdated to take effect from before 30 December 2021. However, this change to the rating list and the backdating of the change did not make the business eligible for a grant, as paragraph 9 explained.
14. The Council’s refusal to pay a grant appears based on the government’s guidance and the information the Council had at the relevant times. So that decision appears properly reached. Therefore, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the decision. So I do not propose to fault the Council for not awarding a grant.

Recovery action for unpaid business rates

15. Miss X’s complaint to us argues the Council cannot charge her business rates from before 30 December 2021 and say she is not eligible for the Omicron Grant. However, eligibility to pay rates and eligibility for this grant are not the same.
16. Miss X refused to pay her business rates because of her disagreement with the Council not paying her the grant. That led to arrears for which the Council took recovery action, including getting a liability order in court. This resulted directly from Miss X’s decision not to pay the rates, not directly and necessarily from the Council refusing the grant. So I do not fault the Council for Miss X having business rates arrears. There was therefore no fault in the principle of the Council seeking payment of the unpaid rates.
17. Miss X is unhappy with how the recovery action progressed, including the Council’s alleged failure to give her some letters about court action, the Council getting a liability order and her not being able to argue her case in in court. We have no power to consider events from the Council issuing the summons to the court granting a liability order, as that all relates to the commencement and conduct of court action, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. Therefore I shall not consider the details of the recovery action.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the refusal to pay the grant. The law prevents us considering the court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman