The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s poor handling of the COVID-19 grant schemes meant she missed out on business support worth £40,000 and was put to time and trouble chasing the Council. We found no fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council’s poor handling of the COVID-19 grant schemes meant she missed out on a business support package for five of her business’ properties, worth £40,000. She was also put to time and trouble chasing the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs X and I reviewed documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I also listened to call recordings provided by the Council.
I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Business Support Package for January Lockdown The Government created various grants schemes to support businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. It issued guidance to councils to help them administer these schemes.
It introduced a business support package in January 2021 and published guidance applicable from 5 January 2021. This guidance set out the conditions for two schemes: The Local Restrictions Support Grant (Closed) Addendum: 5 January onwards (“LRSG”) and The Closed Businesses Lockdown Payment (“CBLP”).
Eligible businesses were those the Government ordered to close and included non-essential retail, leisure, tourism, personal care, sports facilities and hospitality businesses.
Councils were to use their judgement about whether they needed an application process for these new mandatory grants. It may be that previous grant rounds resulted in an accurate list of those businesses needing to be paid during the January national lockdown.
The closing date for applications for the first cycle of LRSG and the CBLP was 31 March 2021 and final payments had to be made by 30 April 2021.
The closing date for applications under the second cycle of the LRSG was 31 May 2021 with final payments by 30 June 2021.
What happened The Council has provided a screenshot from its website to show it advertised the LRSG and CBLP grant schemes and said how to apply.
I asked the Council for records of any calls with Mrs X. It provided call recordings summarised below.
On 27 April 2021 Mrs X called the Council. She said her businesses had not received the first cycle of LRSG. She was not sure if she applied but noted she received other grants automatically. The Council officer told her to make an enquiry online because they did not know if she had applied and did not have access to that information. Mrs X expressed concerned as it appeared the deadline had passed. The officer confirmed it had expired. The officer said if she had applied she would receive the payment automatically.
On 28 April Mrs X called the Council. She explained she had made an enquiry online but was concerned as the deadline for payments was 30 April. The Council officer looked on the system for the enquiry form. They struggled to find it as Mrs X had not entered a business rates number in the correct box. They eventually found it and told Mrs X where they would save the record. They said they would pass on the enquiry and hopefully someone would reply that day.
On 27 May Mrs X called the Council. She said her businesses received the second cycle of LRSG. However, they had not received the first cycle of LRSG or the CBLP. The Council officer asked if she had applied. Mrs X said she applied a month ago. The officer told her to make enquiry online. Mrs X said she tried that in April but heard nothing back. The officer looked for an enquiry form but could not find it. They told Mrs X to raise a new enquiry. Mrs X did this during the call and the officer confirmed receipt. Mrs X asked whether the officer could see if she applied. The officer said they had no access to that information.
On 10 June Mrs X called the Council. She said she applied for grants a few months ago but not yet received these. She had still not heard further to an enquiry form. The Council officer said the relevant team had received her enquiry form and it was under review.
On 10 June Mrs X called the Council to chase. The Council officer said the relevant team would respond to her enquiry soon.
On 15 June Mrs X complained to the Council. In summary she said: She contacted the Council in January about the grant schemes. She was not told she had to apply, rather the Council said they were very busy, she was in the system and she should wait.
She contacted the Council again in April and was told to apply on one form for all five properties. The Council officer said she was in time.
She chased the Council many times and was told to wait. Each time she spoke to someone they struggled to find records of her calls.
She contacted the Council in June and it then said she had missed the deadline to apply for the first cycle LRSG and the CBLP.
She asked the Council to reconsider paying the grants.
On 19 July the Council replied, in summary: It received five second cycle LRSG applications on 10 May 2021. It had paid these grants.
Businesses had to apply for the first cycle LRSG and the CBLP by 31 March.
It had no record of a telephone call from her in January.
Information about the grant schemes was on its website.
It recounted the call of 27 April (referred at paragraph 14).
It recounted the call of 27 May (referred at paragraph 16).
It notes Mrs X chased a response on 10 and 14 June.
On 15 June an officer told her she applied too late.
It would not change its decision.
In August Mrs X contacted the Council again, insisting she called many times in January and onwards seeking advice.
The Council maintained it had no record of any other contact and referred her to the Ombudsman.
When I spoke to Mrs X she said she had records showing her calls to the Council from January 2021 to July 2021. I asked her to provide a copy of these, however none were provided.
Findings
I am satisfied the Council advertised the LRSG and CBLP grants schemes on its website and made clear businesses had to apply.
Mrs X says the Council told her she did not have to apply when she called prior to the deadline. However, Mrs X has not provided any supporting evidence of this, the Council has no record of any such communication and, this would be contrary to the information it advertised. In weighing up the information available I am unable to find, even on the balance of probabilities, that the Council gave Mrs X incorrect advice. I therefore find no fault.
Mrs X says when she spoke to the Council in April it told her she was in time to apply for the LRSG first cycle and CBLP. The Council has no record of any such communication. And I am mindful that Mrs X would have been in time to apply for the second cycle of LRSG at that time. Therefore, it is possible there may have been a miscommunication during any call. In any event, without records to show what was said, it is not possible for me to say the Council gave Mrs X incorrect information.
The Council refused Mrs X the first cycle LRSG and the CBLP as she did not apply before the deadline. This was in line with the Government guidance and so I do not find fault.
I acknowledge Mrs X was chasing the Council from April to June as she wanted to know if a payment would be forthcoming. While I appreciate this was time consuming and frustrating for Mrs X, I do not consider there was any undue delay by the Council. It addressed her enquiry within two months at a time when it was very busy. This does not amount to fault.
I acknowledge the Council was unable to locate Mrs X’s enquiry form submitted in April when she chased this in May. This is evidence of poor service but this does not meet our threshold for a finding of fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no fault in the Council’s handling of the business grant schemes in Mrs X’s case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman