The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no administrative fault in the Council’s decision not to include children’s soft play centres in one of its COVID-19 business support schemes. Although the complainant opposes this decision, this does not give us grounds to uphold her complaint. We have therefore completed our investigation.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Mrs P.
Mrs P complains the Council decided not to include children’s soft play centres in phase 2 of its COVID-19 additional restrictions grant (ARG) scheme. This meant the two centres she owns in the Council’s area were not eligible for funding, despite having received grants in phase 1 of the scheme.
Mrs P would like there to be a review of the Council’s funding decisions, as she considers there to be misconduct and possible corruption by the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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) This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the councils followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
How I considered this complaint
I reviewed the correspondence between Mrs P, her MP, and the Council.
What I found
There has been a significant volume of correspondence between the parties involved in this complaint. In the interests of clarity and brevity, I will not detail that here; rather I will summarise the key elements of each party’s respective positions.
Mrs P owns and operates two children’s soft play centres in the Council’s area. She also owns a third centre, which is in a neighbouring council’s area.
As part of the Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council received funding to set up and administer an ‘additional restrictions grant’ scheme, for businesses in its area which had been closed or severely affected by lockdown restrictions. Under phase 1 of this scheme, Mrs P’s two soft play centres received grants, amounting to £10,000 in total.
In 2021 the Council started phase 2 of the scheme. It structured the eligibility criteria and funding levels similar to phase 1, but it had now removed soft play centres from the scheme. This meant Mrs P’s business was no longer eligible to receive funding.
In complaining about this decision, Mrs P highlighted that the neighbouring authority's scheme had undergone no such change, and her centre in that area had received a grant. She also said a rival business in another local authority area had also received a significant grant under a discretionary scheme. Mrs P also criticised the Council for directing her to complain to her MP, when the MP had no influence over local authority decisions.
In response, the Council explained the Government had asked local authorities to devise and administer ARG schemes as best suited their respective areas, and so the eligibility criteria were for the Council to decide. That other authorities had made different decisions did not change this. The Council also explained it had directed Mrs P to her MP if she wished to complain about the Government guidance, not its own decisions.
Mrs P referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2021. In doing so, she asked for the Ombudsman to review all of the Council’s ARG decisions, and said she believed there had been misconduct and corruption by the Council.
Legislative background Additional Restrictions Grants After introducing the original business support grant schemes, the Government gave councils further funding for business support activities. With these schemes, councils had the freedom to decide the eligibility criteria.
Analysis Mrs P complains the Council decided not to include soft play centres in phase 2 of its ARG scheme, meaning she was unable to access further funding for two of her centres.
The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way councils have made their decisions. We may criticise councils if, for example, they have not followed an appropriate procedure, not taken into account relevant information, or failed to properly explain why they have done something. We do not, however, provide a route of appeal against council decisions. We do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because somebody disagrees with what a council has done.
In this case, the Council has explained it sought to distribute the ARG funding it received from the Government as widely as possible. In doing so, it decided not to include soft play centres in phase 2 of the scheme, which it was entitled to do. That other local authorities had decided to administer their respective schemes differently is immaterial; as the Council has explained, the Government delegated to each authority to power to devise its own scheme. The Council was not obliged to follow the example of others.
I understand Mrs P is opposed to the Council’s decision. This is entirely her prerogative, and I do not dismiss her strength of feeling about it, nor do I expect her to change her mind because of my investigation. The fact remains, however, that her opposition does not mean the Council has made an administrative fault, which would give me grounds to uphold her complaint.
I note Mrs P also complains the Council advised her to contact her MP, when her complaint was about a Council decision over which the MP had no influence. The Council has explained its advice was to contact the MP if Mrs P had a complaint about the Government guidance.
I have not seen a copy of this exchange, and so I cannot draw any objective conclusions about it. However, even if I accepted Mrs P’s version of events, I do not consider this would be a significant matter warranting further investigation.
I also note Mrs P considers the Council’s ARG decisions should be reviewed in their entirety, and alleges the Council’s decision is the result of corruption.
If I considered there was fault in how the Council had devised the ARG phase 2 scheme, I might recommend the Council review any relevant decisions it had made – absent evidence of fault, however, there is no justification for me to make such a recommendation.
And corruption is an extremely serious, criminal allegation which the Ombudsman has no power or authority to investigate. If Mrs P considers there is evidence of corruption here she should refer the matter to the police.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman