Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to pay his business a grant following damage by flooding. I have decided to stop investigating this late complaint. The Council refused the application in March 2017, and Mr X could have complained earlier. I would also be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to pay his business a Flood Resilience Grant following damage by flooding. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the grant rules. This has caused his business a significant financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. I have considered whether I should use my discretion to investigate Mr X’s late complaint. I have explained my decision later in this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr X and the Council provided.
6. I considered the Local Government Act 1974, which sets out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

What I found

7. The government responded to severe flooding in winter 2015 to 2016 by arranging a grant scheme for councils to make payments for households, businesses and farmers. The government gave councils the responsibility of managing schemes and assessing applications. It gave brief, non-specific advice on criteria but allowed councils to design their schemes.
8. Mr X owns a business that flooded during these storms. He applied in November 2016 for a grant to cover the cost of works to repair some damage and improve future resilience to flooding. The Council rejected his application in March 2017.
9. Mr X and the Council discussed the eligibility criteria for the grant, and Mr X sought help from his MP to challenge the Council’s decision.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s views on eligibility for the grant, but it did not agree the works he carried out were eligible. The Council reconsidered the application but different officers agreed the works to Mr X’s business did not come within the criteria for the grant scheme.
11. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman 22 months after the Council rejected his application, in January 2019. There were long periods of time between Mr X’s complaints and replies from the Council, which explains some of the delay in Mr X contacting the Ombudsman. However, we generally advise complainants to contact us if they do not receive a response to their complaint within 12 weeks.
    Mr X could have contacted us in July 2017, as the Council took more than 12 weeks to respond.
12. The Council was entitled to decide whether Mr X’s business was eligible for the grant, and the fact that Mr X disagreed does not mean its decision was fault. Based on the information I have seen, it is unlikely I would find the Council was at fault for refusing Mr X’s application.
13. Mr X told the Ombudsman he was concerned the Council had refused the grant as part of a larger aim to deny flooding being a problem in his area. On the balance of probabilities, I would find no evidence to support this claim if I investigated Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have discontinued my investigation of Mr X’s complaint because it was late and it is unlikely I would find any fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman