Summary: Mr F complained about the way the Council dealt with his application for a home improvement grant. We found fault which caused him time and trouble and to miss out on having solar panels installed. The Council has agreed to fund the installation of solar panels to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the way the Council dealt with his application for a home improvement grant (the Sustainable Warmth Grant) and his complaint.
2. Mr F says as a result of delays and miscommunication, his grant was not approved and he has missed out on energy efficiency improvements to his property which would have led to savings. He has also been left with damaged windows. In addition, the process has been exhausting and stressful and caused him significant time and trouble and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• The Government’s Guidance: Sustainable Warmth Competition, Guidance for Local Authorities, June 2021. (“the Guidance”)
• The Council’s Customer Information Guidance on the grant scheme. (“the Customer Guide”)
9. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Sustainable Warmth Grants

10. The Government established sustainable warmth grants in 2022. The aim of the grants was to support low-income households living in energy inefficient homes by installing energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures (such as insulation and solar panels). The scheme ran until the end of March 2023. The maximum grant for a property which had mains gas was £10,000.
11. The Government’s guidance says a “fabric first” approach (i.e. insulation and heat loss prevention measures) was strongly encouraged and should be installed before other energy efficiency measures. It also says such insulation may require improved ventilation systems to be installed.
12. The funding was provided by the Government, but the Council was responsible for administering and managing the grant scheme. The Council commissioned a company (Firm X) to assess and coordinate applications. It commissioned another company (Firm Y) to manage the design and installation of the energy efficiency measures. The Council says that it was Firm Y’s intention to appoint subcontractors to install external wall insulation.
13. In summary, the application process was:
1. The Council confirmed that the applicant was eligible for the grant, in line with the Government’s criteria. If eligible the application would be passed to Firm X.
2. Firm X assessed the property to determine which energy efficiency measures may be needed.
3. Firm X wrote to the resident setting out which measures were being proposed and sent these proposals to Firm Y.
4. Firm Y carried out a survey of the property and produced a technical report with a quote for the costs of the installation.
14. The Customer Guide says these stages should be completed within about 11 weeks.
15. The Council says Firm Y’s report and quote would then be sent to the Council for the funding to be approved. It was only after approval that works could start. Its Customer Guide says Firm X quality assured Firm Y’s proposal, authorised the design, finalised what measures will be offered and wrote to the customer for their agreement. It is unclear in the Customer Guide if this is before or after the Council had approved the funding.
16. The Council recruited staff to manage the grant scheme but most posts were not filled until September 2022 and there was initial turnover of project managers and other changes within the management structure.

Complaint procedures

17. The Council’s complaint policy since 1 April 2023 is a two-stage complaint procedure. Complaints are initially dealt with by an informal, service resolution. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can be escalated to the formal complaints process. The Council will agree a response time with the complainant.

What happened

18. Mr F applied for a sustainable warmth grant on 24 June 2022. The Council determined he was eligible in relation to the Government’s income, property ownership and property energy efficiency criteria. It wrote to Mr F on 15 August to confirm this and passed the case to Firm X. A third party assessed Mr F’s home on 24 August. Mr F says the assessor suggested underfloor insulation so he postponed installing carpets. But I have not seen any evidence of the measures that were proposed.
19. Firm X should then have passed the case to Firm Y. To be in line with the Customer Guide, Firm Y should have submitted its report and any quote for approval to the Council by the end of September. Firm X says its retrofit coordination was completed by 30 August but I have not seen any evidence that Firm Y received the application at this stage.
20. Mr F contacted the Council on 30 September as he had not heard anything. He also called Firm X which told him the Council had his proposal and it was pending approval. But there is no evidence Firm Y had yet submitted a quote for approval to the Council.
21. On 7 October, Firm X wrote to Mr F saying his application had been approved and a technical survey would be scheduled if required. The letter says the proposed works were solar panels, an energy efficient door, and heating controls. It also says ventilation measures (such as window trickle vents) were mandatory with insulation measures.
22. Mr F emailed Firm X to request an alternative to the door as he did not require this. In response Firm X said it was meeting with Firm Y on 3 November to hand over the proposals. I have seen no evidence of any further action.
23. In January 2023, Firm X again assessed Mr F’s property. It sent a new approval letter to Mr F on 16 January and sent its assessment report to Firm Y on 27 January. The letter to Mr F proposes the same works as before, but the assessment report also includes external wall insulation. The total estimated cost in its options evaluation was £10,475. This comprised £2,035 for external wall insulation, £6,000 for solar PV panels and £2,440 for trickle vents and extract ventilation. The assessment report estimates energy savings of £325 per year if solar panels were installed.
24. Firm Y carried out its technical survey of Mr F’s property on 17 February and completed its report, including solar panels and external wall insulation, on 22 February.
25. Firm Y says it did not submit a quote for Mr F’s property to the Council as the costs of the works were £18,000 (above the £10,000 limit) and it was not able to carry out the external wall insulation.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that Firm Y had been unable to find a subcontractor to install external wall insulation over the winter. On 29 March Firm Y sent the Council a list of properties where external wall insulation was proposed but which Firm Y could not install. This included Mr F’s property which was therefore categorised as a “solar only” project.
27. Mr F called Firm Y nine times between mid-February and mid-March to chase up the installation but had no response. He says in one of the calls, Firm Y organised window trickle vents to be installed, which he agreed to as he was advised they were necessary to enable the other energy saving measures to be installed. Mr F says he was left with badly drilled holes damaging his new windows and poorly fitted trickle vents. In response to my enquiries, Firm Y accepted the vents were installed in error as they were not necessary.
28. The Council says that during this period it was advised by the Government that it needed to severely reduce the number of solar only properties that were proposed for funding. It therefore asked Firm Y to send in a list of all properties that were awaiting funding approval (or had been approved but not yet started) and a second list excluding properties where solar was the only proposed measure. These lists were sent on 9 May.
29. The Council says it was then advised by the Government that solar only schemes would not be approved. The grant funding scheme had ended on 31 March and no further projects were allowed.
30. Firm X says that the Council informed it that properties which had not had works started were to be cancelled as there was no further funding. This included Mr F’s property.

Mr F’s complaint

31. Mr F complained to the Council, Firm X and Firm Y on 13 April 2023 that it was six months since he had received the first letter saying his application had been approved but the measures had not been installed. Firm X told Mr F the application had been passed to Firm Y, which had advised it would contact him to arrange installation. The Council did not reply.
32. Mr F made a formal complaint to the Council on 23 May. He said his messages to Firm Y had gone unanswered and he had now been advised by Firm X that installations had ceased. Mr F said he was missing out on energy savings that had been estimated to be £561.73 per year and he had been caused the stress and inconvenience of having to pursue the matter for 33 weeks.
33. The next day Mr F received a standard letter from the Council saying that, as the funding had not yet been allocated to his property, the previously agreed works would not proceed. He then made a further complaint that other applications and households had been prioritised over his own.
34. The Council requested an update from Firm X which said it had carried out an initial assessment on 24 August and had passed the works to Firm Y on 27 January. Firm X said that external wall insulation could not be offered as the costs were coming in at over £18,000. It also said that it had not been informed that Firm Y was not able to install external wall insulation; if this had been clear it may have recommended solar panels only, although I note Mr F had asked for external wall insulation.
35. The Council replied to Mr F’s complaint on 9 June. It said it was unlikely any works would now proceed as Firm Y was proposing a solar only scheme which would not be approved. The letter did not signpost Mr F to the Ombudsman.
36. Mr F made some data access requests to the Council and Firms X and Y. He came to the Ombudsman in January 2024. He has sent evidence of the numerous calls he made to the Council, Firm X and Firm Y.

My findings

37. There was delay dealing with Mr F’s grant application from August 2022 to January 2023. Firm X said it had uploaded its assessment for the Council to approve but did not get this approval until 7 October. But to be in line with the Council’s process, Firm X should have sent its August assessment to Firm Y to enable Firm Y to submit a quote for approval to the Council by the end of September. This did not happen and the reason is unclear. This is fault.
38. I also find fault with Firm X’s letter of 7 October 2022, which I consider was misleading. It said Mr F’s application had been approved but in fact his application for solar panels, an energy efficient door and ventilation was awaiting a technical survey and a quote to be approved.
39. There were then discussions between Mr F and Firm X about installing external wall insulation rather than a door. This meant Firm X needed to re-assess Mr F’s property, which it did in January 2023. The Council says Firms X and Y were faced with a large volume of work to be completed in a short timeframe. But I can see no good reason why it took until January 2023. I therefore find fault in this delay.
40. When we have evidence of fault, we will seek a remedy for any injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. To determine the injustice, I have considered what would have likely happened if there had been no delay.
41. My view is that Firm X would have sent its proposals for solar panels and an energy efficient door to Firm Y and its approval letter to Mr F in early September 2022. Discussions would then have started about changing the proposals to external wall insulation, requiring a re-assessment of the property. If the re-assessment had followed the same process as in the Customer Guide, Firm Y should have been submitting any quote for approval by the Council within 11 weeks of Mr F’s request to change. So by early November 2022.
42. This quote would have included solar and external wall insulation (which would have required trickle vents).
43. There is some uncertainty about the costs and whether Firm Y would have submitted a quote to the Council. I say this because Firm Y’s response to my enquiries said the costs of external wall insulation averaged £15,000. However, the Council has said that the total cost estimated in Firm X’s January 2023 options evaluation (£10,475) is reasonable and likely to have been fairly accurate. Mr F has also sent evidence that Firm X’s estimates were reliable and accurate.
44. I therefore find on balance that a quote of approximately £10,475 was likely to have been produced by Firm Y. The Council has accepted that if it had received a quote in November 2022 of £10,475 for solar PV panels and external wall insulation this would have been approved.
45. It is unclear whether the external wall insulation could have been fitted, as Firm Y was unable to find a subcontractor over the winter. However, at this stage the Government’s requirement not to approve solar only projects had not been issued. So my view on balance is that a solar only project would have been approved in November 2022.
46. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, I find that the delay has caused Mr F to miss out on an opportunity for his grant application to be approved and solar panels installed in 2023. This is an injustice. My view is the Council should now fund the installation of solar PV in Mr F’s home, in line with the specification in Firm X’s options evaluation and assessment report of January 2023.
47. In relation to estimated energy savings, I consider it is appropriate to use the estimate of £325 per year in the August 2022 EPC and the January 2023 assessment report.
48. Mr F was caused time and trouble in pursuing the matter. But I do not consider that the unnecessary installation of window trickle vents is a significant injustice. If damage has been caused to Mr F’s windows, he may wish to pursue this with the installer.
49. We normally ask for a symbolic payment to acknowledge distress caused by fault. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance says, for time and trouble, symbolic, moderate payments up to £500 may be appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I have found fault with the actions of the companies, I have made recommendations to the Council.
51. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr F. [The Council has already completed this.]
2. pay him:
1. £250 to remedy the time and trouble he was put to. [The Council has already paid this.]
2. £800 to remedy estimated energy efficiency savings he would have had from 2023 to mid-2025. [The Council has already paid £500 of this.]
3. Write to Mr F to confirm it will fund the installation of solar panels on his property.
52. Following this, the Council has agreed that:
1. Mr F should seek two quotes from installers and submit these to the Council for consideration. He may wish to consider the Council’s list of approved installers. The quotes should be for solar panels in line with the specification set out in Firm Y’s technical survey of 17 February 2023.
2. Once a quote is agreed, Mr F should arrange the works with the installer.
3. Mr F should submit the invoice to the Council for payment.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman