Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of an Additional Restrictions Grant because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s February 2022 review decision to refuse his business an Additional Restrictions Grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In October 2020 the Government introduced the Additional Restrictions Grant (“ARG”) to support businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It issued guidance for councils to follow in creating their own discretionary schemes to manage the grants.
7. In early 2022 the Ombudsman found the Council at fault because it refused Mr X’s business an ARG for a reason not provided for within Government guidance or its own policy. The Ombudsman asked the Council to review its decision.
8. The Council’s review decision of February 2022 sets outs it reasons for refusing the ARG. The Council refers to the information provided and explains why this shows the business was not operating or trading from Westminster as needed to be eligible under its ARG scheme.
9. The Council took into account relevant information and decided in line with its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s consideration of the information provided. However, that does not allow us to find fault.
11. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman