15. When we look at a complaint, we first look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this, and we have not found any indications that something has gone wrong, as we explain in the following sections.
Innovate UK failed to properly assess and score Mr B’s submission for grant funding
16. The criteria for the competition that Mr B applied for were set out on the Government website as part of the – ‘Innovate UK Smart Grants: January 2020’ section of the website.
17. The site showed eligibility criteria for a successful application, the scope of the project, dates an individual needed to apply by, how to apply, and some supporting information. There is also general guidance about funding applications and how they are handled, available on the Innovate UK website.
18. Of the 2,728 applications received, 2,440 were sent to be assessed, and this included the application from Mr B.
19. We asked UKRI about the assessment process and it explained that applications are allocated to assessors, according to their skills and experience. They are provided with a briefing which sets out what is expected of them and how to complete the process. Once the assessors have completed their work, Innovate UK moderates the results.
20. It is not our role to make a judgement on the scoring or the applicability of the comments, but to ensure that the assessors followed the relevant guidance in considering Mr B’s application. We have seen the guidance that was given to the assessors for this specific round of grants. We are satisfied that the evidence available to us shows they adhered to the guidance when dealing with Mr B’s submission. This is because each section of the form considers the relevant criteria and sets out the assessor’s explanation for their score, with reference to the application Mr B had made, and the evidence he had provided.
21. While Mr B may disagree with the rationale for the scores given, that alone is not an indication of maladministration, i.e., that Innovate UK failed to follow its processes or that it did so in a way which was unreasonable. We understand that Mr B feels that his proposal had merit and so believes something must have gone wrong in Innovate UK’s process, but we have seen no evidence to support this view. As such, we will take no further action.
Innovate UK did not address comments Mr B made in his complaint response
22. According to Innovate UK’s complaints guidance, complaints about a scientific or technical decision made regarding a grant application will not be considered under that process. In this instance, Innovate UK considered that the complaint was about how the funding decision had been made, and in their complaint guidance it says:
23. For unsuccessful applicants, we will offer feedback to explain why we have not chosen them. We won’t reconsider applications after this point unless we receive a complaint about how we made the decision.
24. When Mr B expressed his dissatisfaction at the initial complaint response, he asked Innovate UK to escalate his complaint. It sent him an email on 1 September 2020 explaining that his complaint would be escalated and asking for more detailed information on the aspects of his complaint that he wished to be investigated.
25. In his response on 2 September 2020, Mr B made eleven comments relating to his complaint. These fall under three key themes:
• that the assessors lacked an understanding of the research category into which his application was placed • that the assessors failed to comprehend what the project was about and how it would be managed, despite it being clearly written • the assessors lacked an understanding of the market that the project intended to target.
26. In its response dated 1 October 2020, the Head of Department (HoD) at Innovate UK, who provided the response said, ‘Thank you for your email dated 2nd September 2020 stating your desire to escalate your complaint […]and for providing additional comments for us to investigate further.’
27. It is evident that the HoD was aware of Mr B’s comments, which appear to have been considered under further investigation. The response goes on to explain that in their view the evidence shows the application was fairly assessed and detailed feedback was provided. They also pointed out, where the application was deemed not strong enough, the actions Mr B might take in the future as well as the resources available to help him submit a stronger application. These specific references to the application show that Innovate UK had listened carefully to what Mr B had said, considered those points in detail, and attempted to address them directly.
28. Finally, the HoD concludes by saying ‘Overall, having reviewed your correspondence and the evidence presented to me in my investigation, I have concluded that there is no reason to overturn the decision […]’.
29. Innovate UK complaint guidance says the person investigating will:
• Agree all the issues and facts which will be investigated with the complainant, if the information provided is unclear • Collect relevant information • Assess the validity of the complaint • Let the complainant know the outcome and if relevant any action has been or will be taken.
30. The evidence shows that Innovation UK sought further clarity from Mr B, in line with its guidance, and this resulted in the above comments provided. The comments were considered as a part of the relevant information alongside his application, the scope of the competition, and the assessor feedback. The HoD determined that the complaint was not valid, and he wrote to Mr B to explain in clear terms how their decision was reached.
31. Mr B believes that each of his individual comments should have received a specific response. There is no requirement in the Innovate UK complaints guidance to do that, and we have seen nothing to suggest such an approach would be proportionate. A complainant can expect that their comments are taken account of in the complaint investigation and then responded to transparently, and we are satisfied that the evidence shows they were. We consider the response provided is in line our Principles of Good Complaint Handling, which say an organisation should ensure that decisions are proportionate, appropriate, and fair.
UKRI failed to address comments Mr B made in his complaint response
32. UKRI’s complaint guidance says that you should complain to it if you believe it has not followed agreed policies, procedures, or legal obligations. In Mr B’s case, when he escalated his complaint to UKRI it referred him back to Innovate UK’s policy which sets out that does not consider complaints about a scientific or technical decision. However, it did decide to review the steps Innovate UK had taken in its investigation of Mr B’s complaint to ensure it had adhered to its complaint handling guidance and was satisfied that was the case.
33. UKRI said that it was satisfied that there was nothing in the complaint responses or Mr B’s correspondence that led it to believe policies and processes had not been adhered to, or that Mr B’s concerns had not been addressed. It took the decision that no further review was needed as the crux of Mr B’s complaint was that he disagreed with the five assessors, and that was not a matter that could be resolved through the complaints process.
34. As with the Innovate UK complaint guidance, there is no requirement for UKRI to address each concern individually. We are satisfied, from the evidence available to us, that UKRI has reviewed Innovate UK’s handling of the complaint and that it has provided a clear rationale for the decision it reached. As such, we are satisfied the response indicates UKRI has acted in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling.
35. For the reasons set out above, we have seen no indications of mistakes by Innovate UK and UKRI. We have therefore decided to take no further action with this complaint.