We received good evidence from a number of bodies about their experience of the fund and the challenges they had faced. For example some had struggled with the language of the grant form, which seemed to be geared to the not-for-profit sector or larger organisations;36 and some unsuccessful applicants were disappointed with the feedback about why their applications were refused and the lack of an appeals process;37 Other successful applicants, were asked to prove their bank details on each payment instalment or to provide milestones for a diversity plan before receiving the grant.38 We asked the 28 Q 24, 25, 46 29 Qq 24, 46, 76 30 Q 78 31 Royal Albert Hall submission 32 Qq 46, 76 33 Qq 24, 76 34 Qq 75, 76 35 Qq 49, 76 36 Q 47; “#WeMakeEvents” submission, page 2; A V Matrix submission, pages 1–4; Written evidence submitted by Kirklees Council, page 1 37 Qq 20, 22; “#WeMakeEvents” submission, page 3; A V Matrix submission, pages 1–4 38 Q 49 12 COVID 19: Culture Recovery Fund Department and ACE about these issues.39 The Department asserted that it had wanted to make the process of application as easy as possible and it had done what it could to make the guidance navigable. It told us arm’s-length bodies had given organisations time to get to grips with guidance and ran workshops for applicants to attend.40 ACE explained that it communicated with unsuccessful applicants about what they had failed on, but acknowledged its feedback had not been extensive, saying that it had to assess a large volume of applications in a very short time. ACE confirmed that it had no appeal process for its decisions about the fund.41 It also acknowledged that its counter-fraud measures meant recipients had to provide bank details for each instalment of their grant.42 The coverage and impact of the fund