The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his application for the Additional Restrictions Grant causing him financial hardship. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s application.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his application for the Additional Restrictions Grant causing him financial hardship.
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 a council’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
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with the complainant; sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.
What I found
Additional Restrictions Grant Fund On 31 October 2020 the government announced that national restrictions would be reintroduced. Enhanced business support settlements that had previously been provided to areas entering Tier 3 restrictions were extended and formalised into the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG).
The ARG funding is a discretionary scheme that aims to support businesses severely impacted by coronavirus restrictions. All businesses that are trading and meet other eligibility criteria may apply to receive funding under this scheme.
The Council’s ARG scheme The Council published its eligibility criteria for the ARG which stated that to be eligible applicants: Must be a registered business, registered charity with a trading entity/activity or registered as self-employed and resident in Islington; Must have trading activities which have been significantly impacted by restrictions on socialising and national lockdown; Must have a physical trading address in Islington at the start of the national lockdown on the 4th of November 2020 which could be a residential address in Islington if you are self-employed and work from home.
The scheme detailed the information required to completed the application and for self-employed applicants included: Confirmation of self-employed status from HMRC; Bank statements covering November 2019 and an additional statement covering October 2020; Evidence of trading in Islington such as lease agreement, license to occupy your trading address or a business rates bill. If you work from home, evidence of proof of residence in Islington.
Key facts Mr X made an application in January 2021 for the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG). He included bank statements from November 2019 and October 2020 and a mobile phone bill. The Council emailed Mr X on 15 January saying it had completed a pre-assessment check and it asked him to provide more information including proof of a lease or rent or residence in Islington and confirmation of his self-employed status from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Mr X responded on 17 January providing a copy of his most recent council tax bill and letters from HMRC. He also confirmed that he was a self-employed IT technician.
The Council emailed Mr X on 29 March. It said that it was a requirement for the grant that it must be able to clearly see the impact that COVID-19 had on his trading in comparison to any previous trading he had. It said the documents Mr X had submitted with his application did not show any business activity for 2020 or 2019. It asked if he had any additional evidence to support his case suggesting the following documents: Any additional trading evidence to highlight his case Website link Invoices or receipts from customers Any business expenses or receipts Other bank statements.
The Council also said the information already submitted suggested Mr X had another bank account and asked if there was any trading evidence within that account. It said that the key thing was to see trading activity and so asked him to send any additional evidence he had.
Mr X emailed the Council the same day sending proof of products sold from August 2020 onwards. He said that he sold items on various online selling platforms.
After reviewing all the evidence submitted by Mr X, the Council explained to him that he had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the criteria for the ARG. Mr X contacted a local councillor who made representations on his behalf and the Council carried out a review of its decision.
On 21 June the Council emailed Mr X setting out its final decision following a review of his ARG application. It said his application did not meet the grants criteria and that he had not provided sufficient evidence of trading in the qualifying period. It signposted him to business support services.
Analysis Mr X is complaining about the Council’s failure to pay him the ARG. He believes he meets the eligibility criteria and that he is entitled to the grant.
The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative process. He is not a right of appeal and does not replace decisions properly made by a council with his own view. I have therefore considered the process used by the Council to consider Mr X’s application for the ARG.
After submitting his application, the Council carried a pre-assessment check. This resulted in the Council writing to Mr X requesting evidence to support his claim. The Council had published the eligibility criteria for the ARG and this included details of the supporting documentation required.
In March the Council wrote to Mr X again giving him a further opportunity to provide evidence in support of his application. The Council explained why it was requesting more information and provided a list of the type of documents that would be useful. While Mr X sent in some information, he did not provide most of the information listed by the Council.
On the basis of the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council followed an appropriate process when determining Mr X’s entitlement to the ARG. The Council published its policy which included details of the evidence required in support of an application. The Council considered all the information provided by Mr X and gave him guidance as well as time to produce relevant evidence. The Council then used its judgement and took the view Mr X had not provided enough evidence to prove eligibility. In particular it says Mr X failed to provide evidence of his trading activity in 2019 and 2020 to show his business had been significantly impacted because of the restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
While I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to decline his application for the ARG, I have found no fault in the process it followed to reach that decision and so there is no basis for me to criticise the Council.
Final decision
I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman