The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for business rates relief available to certain businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for expanded retail discount (ERD), which provided a 100% relief from business rates for premises being used for any of the eligible uses set out in guidance issued by the Government. This was one of several schemes introduced to help businesses deal with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council refused Mr X’s application for ERD because it did not consider his business met the ‘use’ and ‘accessibility’ criteria set out in the government guidance. While Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view the law does not allow us to question its decision without evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
Mr X believes the Council failed to properly consider the guidance and refers to sections from it which he says show his business was eligible. He also argues it is not for the Council to interpret whether the use is eligible as it is defined in the guidance.
But I have seen nothing in the Council’s correspondence to show the Council was at fault in reaching its decision. The guidance sets out various uses which are eligible, as well as some which are not, and gives examples of businesses which would and would not qualify for the discount. The guidance could not cover every eventuality and it is for this reason it states “It is for local authorities to determine for themselves whether particular properties are broadly similar in nature to [those the Government does not consider to be an eligible use for the purpose of the relief] and, if so, to consider them not eligible for the relief under the local scheme.”
The Council has considered the information provided by Mr X, as well as the information available on his website, and has decided the business is broadly similar in nature to those which are specifically excluded from the scheme. This is a decision it is entitled to reach and it is neither irrational nor perverse; I therefore see no basis for us to criticise it.
Mr X is also seeking to question the level of the charges at court following the Council’s application for a liability order on the basis of his entitlement to ERD. It would not therefore be appropriate for us to investigate his complaint which covers broadly the same points as he has raised with the court.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman