Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision regarding her application for the extended retail discount available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complaint, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision not to award the extended retail discount to her business during the first COVID-19 lockdown.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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”.
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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. In the October 2018 Budget, the Government announced it would provide a Business Rates Retail Discount during 2019/20 and 2020/21. Because of COVID-19, the Government announced on 11 March 2020 it would increase the discount to 100% and extend it to include the leisure and hospitality sectors.
7. Guidance issued by the Government explained the properties which would benefit from the relief were occupied hereditaments that are wholly or mainly being used:

“as shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas and live music venues…We consider shops...to mean…Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public…hereditaments which are occupied, but not wholly or mainly used for the qualifying purpose will not qualify for the relief. For the avoidance of doubt, hereditaments which have closed temporarily due to the government’s advice on COVID-19 should be treated as occupied for the purposes of this relief.”

8. Mrs X took over the lease of a shop on 05 April 2020. Because the shop was a “non-essential” retailer it could not open to the public until June 2020. Mrs X instead sold goods online. Mrs X asked the Council to provide her with the extended retail discount for business rates from 05 April 2020.
9. The Council has refused Mrs X’s application and appeals. It has granted the discount from 15 June 2020 when the shop opened to the public. It has said that by operating as an online business it was not a shop, used for the sale of goods to the visiting public. It did not therefore qualify for the discount.
10. I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. But we are not an appeal body and cannot criticise a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way it was reached. The Council has considered Mrs X’s application and appeal. It has decided that because her business had not traded as a shop, open to the public, until 15 June 2020, she was not entitled to the extended retail discount. It has explained this decision with reference to the Government’s guidance.
11. Mrs X has referred to the part of the Government’s guidance which states “hereditaments which have closed temporarily due to the government’s advice on COVID-19 should be treated as occupied for the purposes of this relief.” But this is different to a business which had not “opened” to the public – like Mrs X’s. Based on the evidence available there is not enough of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman