Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to paying a ‘retail, hospitality and leisure’ grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council taking enforcement action against his business in relation to unpaid business rates. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. paid him a lower-level ’retail, hospitality and leisure’ grant than he believed he was entitled to;
2. failed to use its discretion to backdate the grant payment to a higher amount;
3. took enforcement action against his business in relation to unpaid business rates; and
4. failed to use its discretion to waive the enforcement agents’ fee that had been added to his account.

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.
3. 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.
4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X previously raised a complaint with the Ombudsman in January 2022 about points a) and b). Mr X had not completed the Council’s complaint process, so the Ombudsman asked him to do so. Mr X completed the Council’s complaint process in June 2022 and complained to the Ombudsman again in April 2025. The Council told Mr X in February 2021 that it had paid him the level of grant he was entitled to in the government’s guidance, and it could not increase the grant he received.
8. On points a) and b), these are about a grant Council’s paid to eligible businesses to support them during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council checked the rateable value of Mr X’s business property from Valuation Office Agency (VOA) records. The VOA works out how much properties are worth for business rates purposes the VOA rounded down the value of the property, which meant Mr X’s business was entitled to the lower-level grant. The VOA website shows later valuations for Mr X’s property have been rounded down, so on balance it is likely that the valuation Mr X referred to was also rounded down. The Council paid Mr X the grant in line with the government guidance.
9. The VOA later increased the rateable value of the property. Councils were allowed to either withhold grants or pay businesses an increased level of grant if there was a clear error in the VOA’s rating list that would have affected the grant amount if the information on the rating list had been correct. Councils had to know about the error by 11 March 2020 to correct it. There is no clear sign the Council knew by 11 March 2020 that the rateable value of the business was more than the VOA had first said.
10. I appreciate the difficulties faced by small businesses during the pandemic. However, the Council relied on information provided by the VOA to issue the grant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making about the level of grant awarded or its later refusal to change its position, so we will not investigate these points further.
11. On points c) and d), Mr X told the Council in February 2022 that the bills he had not paid were because he could not run his business normally during the pandemic. Mr X said he should not have to pay the Council’s bailiff fees as the debt was because of the restrictions on his business.
12. The Council told Mr X that a large part of the debt was from before the pandemic and Mr X could have addressed the arrears before the Council started enforcement action.
13. These matters occurred after Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman. As set out in paragraph 4, I consider this complaint to be late. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider the late complaint as he is now in a position financially and emotionally to bring the matter to the Ombudsman’s attention.
14. I have considered Mr X’s reasons for the late complaint, and I acknowledge the emotional and financial difficulties he has faced. However, almost 3 years had passed between his last communication with the Council and him raising the complaint with the Ombudsman. Mr X told the Council in June 2022 that he would be complaining to the Ombudsman, so I do not see any good reason to use discretion to investigate the matter now.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to paying a ‘retail, hospitality and leisure’ grant because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council taking enforcement action because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman