Summary: The Council failed to explain the reasons for its decision on Mr B’s Community Initiative Fund application. The Council should be open and transparent on decisions it makes. The Ombudsman found no evidence to question the decision itself, even though Mr B disagrees with it. So regardless of the fault, the outcome for Mr B and his community group would be the same.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council awarded a lesser community grant than he applied for and failed to explain the reasons for this. Mr B believes there was political bias in the Council’s decision. The Council’s decision not to award the full amount meant Mr B’s project had a shortfall in funding and could not go ahead.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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”.
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council, including the Council’s “Community Initiative Funding Policy” and “West Sussex Community Initiative Fund (Crowdfunding)”. I considered the Ombudsman’s “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council has a Community Initiative Fund, giving discretionary grants to local projects. Mr B applied for a grant for a community group that he chairs.
8. Mr B was crowdfunding to raise money for his community project. Crowdfunding is when many people each give an amount of money to pay for a project. Mr B’s application to the Council said his crowdfunding target was £3,346. The minimum target must be reached for a project to go ahead. If the project is cancelled, all investor funds are returned.
9. The reason Mr B was crowdfunding is because the Council’s ‘Community Initiative Funding Policy’ says preference is given to those that have secured additional funding. Mr B was using the Council’s crowdfunding website. The Council’s “West Sussex Community Initiative Fund (Crowdfunding)” document explains you do not apply for a specific amount of funding, and that the maximum pledge is £5,000. The document says the assessment process will consider the following:

• Ensuring the applicant organisation meets the eligibility criteria.
• Establishing if the application for which funding is sought is suitable to be funded under this programme and is consistent with the expressed purpose of the fund.
• Considering if the application is clear as to what is being asked for and testing that costings are accurate, appropriate and represent value for money.
• Determining if the demand for the activity or project has been adequately and accurately demonstrated.
• Considering the difference the activity will make within the context of the local community as a whole.

10. The document is silent on how the Council’s committee will decide the amount to pledge.
11. The Council has a ‘Community Initiative Funding Policy’ but was not following the normal process because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Applications would normally be considered at the regular County Local Committee meetings, but these meetings are not currently taking place. Instead, the Councillors who form the committee have considered the applications informally and given their views over e-mail. A Council officer then makes the decision in consultation with the Chair of the Committee under its ‘Urgent Action’ procedure rather than awaiting the next formal meeting.
12. There were seven committee members present on the day Mr B’s application was considered. Four members rejected the application on the basis a department of the Borough Council had responsibility for funding the type of work contained in Mr B’s application. One member abstained from the vote, and two supported Mr B’s application with a pledge of £500. There is nothing to show how they arrived at the figure of £500.
13. Two members were not present on the day, so the Council officer taking the Urgent Action decision sought their views on another day. Mr B was in contact with the Council over this period to question the decision and the process, even though the Council had not yet made a formal decision.
14. The two absent members supported Mr B’s application which gave a split vote, so the Chair had a casting vote and voted to support the pledge of £500 towards Mr B’s community initiative.
15. Mr B was initially happy he had received support for his project, but when the decisions were published, he discovered all other projects under consideration by the committee had received much higher pledges than his application. Mr B also discovered there was remaining money available so it would have been possible for the committee to pledge more to his project.
16. The Council’s policy allows it to award a different amount, it says the reasons for this will be explained and recorded in the decision and minutes. Because the decision was taken informally there are no minutes, but there is a recorded decision. However, the recorded decision only lists the £500 pledge and does not give the reasons for this. The Council says this part of the policy does not apply to crowdfunding because the applicant is not applying for a specific amount but for support of their Crowdfunder.
17. Mr B complained to the Council that it has not provided an explanation of how it arrived at the figure of £500. All other applications received 100% of their required remaining Crowdfunder amount, but Mr B’s application received 20% of what he needed. Mr B suspects political bias played a part in the decision making.
18. The Council responded saying the decision falls within the discretion of elected members, who have acted in accordance with policy relating to the community initiative fund.
19. Mr B’s Crowdfunder did not reach its target so could not go ahead, Mr B is understandably disappointed by this.

Was there fault causing injustice?

20. I must now consider whether there was fault in the Council’s actions, which caused Mr B and/or the group he represents an injustice.
21. Although the Council is not currently following the Community Initiative Funding Policy to make its Community Initiative Fund decisions, the Ombudsman still expects the Council to follow good administrative practice during Covid-19. While the Ombudsman understands the Council’s records might look different to those we would expect during normal arrangements, such as not publishing minutes in this case, we still expect councils to be open and transparent. It is important to accurately record decisions and explain the reasons for them.
22. The Council’s policy is silent on how it considers crowdfunding applications. I accept the Council’s argument that the section of its policy requiring it to record the reasons if it awards a lesser amount than that applied for does not apply to crowdfunding applications, as they are not asking for a set amount. This is made clear in the “West Sussex Community Initiative Fund (Crowdfunding)” document.
23. There is no evidence the Council assessed the application in line with the assessment process set out in paragraph nine. However, as the Council supported the application this does not cause Mr B or his community group an injustice.
24. Because the Council did not provide Mr B with the reasons for its decision, his natural conclusion is to feel there is bias against his group, given all other applications received the amount sought and there was money available to award his group more than the £500 given. Mr B felt his group was singled out for different treatment and suspects political bias.
25. I cannot conclude there was political bias by the Councillors. The reason given by those not in support was a valid one based on policy. The final decision was in support of Mr B’s application. There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision, only in how it recorded it.
26. I find fault with the lack of transparency. Because the Council has not provided a methodology to show how it allocates Community Initiative funding, and how it decided to pledge £500 to Mr B’s Crowdfunder, it leaves it open to accusations of bias. I understand it is at the committee’s discretion, but the committee must have some methodology and logic in how it decides what to award.
27. I have seen no evidence of any discussion or rationale about the £500 pledge. The Council confirms there was none.
28. I cannot say that because of this the decision is wrong, the committee jointly decided on the figure to pledge, and that is within its discretion to do so. Mr B is understandably frustrated by the lack of transparency in his case, but the outcome of the amount the Council decided to award would be the same.
29. The Community Initiative Fund no longer exists so the Ombudsman makes no recommendations to improve the Council’s process. The Ombudsman has reminded the Council of the importance of being open and transparent. The Council has confirmed it will improve its practices in any future or equivalent arrangements for funding community initiatives.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council was not transparent in how it reached its decision, but there was no fault in how it reached its decision, so the outcome for Mr B and his community group would be the same regardless of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman