Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Erewash Borough Council (20 009 615)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 09-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council paid the Small Business Grant for his premises to the wrong person and that an officer made an unpleasant comment during a telephone call to discuss the situation. He says the loss of the grant has worsened his financial problems. There is no evidence of fault in the Council's actions. It did consider whether the listing was inaccurate and whether to exercise its discretion to award the Small Business Grant to Mr X but was not persuaded by the evidence provided by Mr X. We are unable to take a view on the comment made by the officer as he denies saying it and there is no recording.

  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 011 810)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 09-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council set an arbitrary ceiling level in respect of rateable value when determining the criteria for its discretionary grant scheme. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council set the criteria for the discretionary grant scheme. Ms X's business did not qualify but this was not as a result of fault by the Council.

  • Thurrock Council (20 012 112)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 09-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to pay her a Small Business Grant because she did not provide an email address causing financial difficulties. This insistence on an email address and online application is fault as it was not a requirement of the scheme and is not in line with the Ombudsman's Principles of Good Administrative Practice. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

  • Torbay Council (20 012 456)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 05-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to refuse him a business grant, causing stress and financial difficulty. We find no fault in the Council's decision making process.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 913)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 04-Aug-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about COVID-19-related grants.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 004 324)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not pay his business a small business grant to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault in the Council's decision.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 532)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 29-Jul-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to refuse Mrs X a COVID-19 business grant.

  • Nottingham City Council (20 003 736)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr Z, on behalf of Ms X, complained the Council did not pay her any of the Small Business Grant she was jointly entitled to which caused her financial difficulties. The Council paid the full Small Business Grant to Miss Y who was jointly and severally liable for the rent and business rates with Ms X. We find fault in the Council's failure to seek written confirmation from all parties to pay the grant to Miss Y who would then split it with Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X an amount equivalent to half of the grant as well as a payment for distress.

  • Manchester City Council (20 013 455)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 22-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to refuse retail rates relief to his business, negatively affecting its finances. We find no fault in the Council's decision making but we find fault as it delayed communicating its decision, causing uncertainty. However, we consider it is not appropriate to make recommendations in the circumstances of this case.

  • Epping Forest District Council (20 011 411)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 21-Jul-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's decisions to refuse rates relief and a grant to her business, causing stress, time and trouble and a negative financial impact. We find no fault in the Council's decision making but find it at fault for delay in responding to Miss X. We recommend it provides an apology and payment for time and trouble.