The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s grant application requirements and decision-making.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council did not give him a COVID-19-related business grant; did not hold a meeting he wanted; and did not deal properly with his formal complaint and communications. He says this caused lost opportunity, he feels unfairly treated, and he spent time dealing with the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and some copy correspondence between the Council, Mr X and his representative that the Council supplied.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s key reason for refusing Mr X’s application was that Mr X did not supply a bank statement in the necessary format. The Council’s application process needed a current bank statement from the business’ account showing at least 30 days’ transactions. The Council says this was to check it was a business bank account related to the business applying for the grant, to check the business was still trading, and as an anti-fraud measure. It believes this was reasonable and it says many other businesses supplied this information.
The bank statements Mr X provided were redacted so the transactions were not visible. Mr X reportedly declined to provide transaction information, saying this was sensitive business information.
It was for the Council to decide what evidence would satisfy it that a business was eligible for this grant scheme, regardless of what different grant schemes might have required. In the context of this grant application, a requirement to provide bank account transaction details does not seem improper or burdensome. The Council has explained its reasons. There was no reason to think it would inappropriately share sensitive information more widely. We have seen similar requirements in other councils’ application procedures for COVID-19-related business grants.
Therefore I do not see fault in the Council’s requirement for bank account transaction information. As Mr X did not supply that, I do not fault the Council for refusing the grant. The Council did not have to consider any other possible evidence the business was trading, in the absence of the information it had sought.
Mr X complains the Council declined a suggestion to meet to discuss the matter with him and an organisation representing him. The evidence suggests this suggestion was after the date the government closed these grant schemes. Therefore such a meeting could not have affected the result of the grant application.
Mr X is also unhappy about the Council’s complaint-handling on this matter. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council refusing the grant. Failing to hold the requested meeting did not cause a significant injustice as the grant scheme had already closed. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman