Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a grant funding scheme. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the grant applications, and the Council has satisfactorily addressed other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the application process for the Town Centre Business Adaptation and Improvement Grant was unfair, discriminatory, and prejudicial, because the Council introduced additional assessment criteria half-way through the process. Mr X also says he had to chase the Council on several occasions for updates on the progress of his application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• the Council has already proposed or taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council, including their complaint correspondence and the application guidance notes which were on the Council’s website.
4. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is disappointed that his grant application was unsuccessful.
6. But I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s application to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation.
7. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful the application guidance said all submissions will be evaluated using a point-scoring system, which would include consideration of the match funding from the applicant, and the ability to deliver the proposed project within the time-limits of the funding availability. The Council has also explained that as the grant value of the applications significantly exceeded the available funding, the appraisals involved a competitive process to prioritise the highest scoring schemes.
8. With regard to match funding, the application guidance provides an indicative intervention rate of 25-50%. The Council says the figures submitted with Mr X’s application meant it fell short of the desired minimum intervention rate. The Council has also explained that as Mr X did not have planning permission for the proposed works, this impacted on the deliverability score and was the primary weakness in his application.
9. I am also mindful of the following general caveats in the application guidance:
• The decision to award grant funding (if any) is subject to a formal decision-making process…. The decision of the panel is final and there is no right of appeal on the decision made.
• You must not place any reliance whatsoever on the support of St Helens Borough Council until formally notified in writing…..Accordingly, any expenditure that you incur and/or to which you commit (including that which you have incurred or committed to in relation to the preparation of your proposal for funding) prior to formal notification and execution and return of the funding agreement is incurred and/or committed entirely at your own risk.
• The application process will be competitive and potentially all good quality applications will not receive funding.
• The [evidence checklist] is designed to act as a minimum requirement and applicants are encouraged to provide as much evidence as possible to support their application.
• The council reserves the right to request further information to assist with the assessment of applications.
• Applicants will be contacted directly by the grant assessment team as soon as there is an update on the application; there will be no information available to applicants until a final decision is made.
10. The Council has apologised for the assessment process taking longer than anticipated and it recognises that, although responses were provided to Mr X at key points in the process, communications could have been better at other stages. I consider the Council’s response was a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed his application, and the Council’s apology for the programme delays and shortcomings in its communications was a reasonable way to address this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman