Summary: The complainant says the Council wrongly refused his applications for grants under the Government’s Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund. We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his grant applications.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his applications for grants under the government’s Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund (RHLGF)

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 often 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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. The retail, hospitality and leisure grant scheme
6. In March 2020, the government created a scheme for councils to pay grants to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This was because the Covid-19 restrictions affected so many of those businesses.
7. A business’ right to a grant depended on its being on the business rating list on 11 March 2020 and meeting certain other criteria. The grant was:
• £10,000 for a business whose property had a rateable value of up to £15,000 on 11 March 2020; or
• £25,000 where the rateable value was over £15,000 and less than £51,000 on 11 March 2020.
8. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list and decides if a business is liable for business rates and, if so, its rateable value. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the VOA.
9. Government guidance for councils said:

“Any changes to the rating list (rateable value or to the hereditament) after the 11 March 2020 including changes which have been backdated to this date should be ignored for the purposes of eligibility.”

10. Local authorities are not required to adjust, pay or recover grants where the rating list is subsequently amended retrospectively to the 11 March 2020.’
11. A council could only make an exception if it was ‘factually clear’ to the Council on 11 March 2020 that the rating list was inaccurate. (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Small Business Grant Fund and Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund: Guidance for Local Authorities)
12. Mr X applied for 3 grants under the RHLGF for 3 businesses. The Council paid 1 grant of £25,000.
13. Mr X asked the Council why it had not paid him grants for his other businesses.
14. The Council advised this was because it considered his other applications did not meet the criteria. It confirmed its records show 2 of his business properties were merged into one following an assessment by the VOA in December 2015. Since that time only 1 business rates bill has been paid for the entire premises. Therefore only 1 grant was paid. It advised Mr X to contact the VOA with his concerns about the merger of the 2 business properties in 2015.
15. For the remaining business, the Council advised its records show Mr X had advised this business started trading on 14 March 2020. The government guidelines for the award of the grant stipulated that the business had to be trading on 11 March 2020. Therefore, Mr X was not entitled to the grant payment for this property.
16. Mr X disputes the Council’s decision but I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. The Council considered the information he provided but decided 2 of his applications did not meet the criteria and did not fall within the limited circumstances in which it could exercise its discretion.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s applications for grants under the RHLGF scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman