Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award a home energy grant for solar panels instead of double glazing. We found the Council to be at fault because its contractor did not follow the procedure set out in government guidance. This caused Mr X frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and review its procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to fund solar panels in response to his request for a home energy grant. He says he is aware that over 80 grants were awarded to fund double glazing instead. Mr X says this would have been the most appropriate way of reducing his energy costs and keeping his home warm.
2. Mr X says there was a lack of consistency and fairness in the Council’s decision making. As a result, he continues to pay higher than necessary fuel bills due to his existing singled glazed windows. The excessive cold also affects his overall well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
5. 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.
6. 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

7. I considered:

• Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided;
• the Council’s response to my enquiries; and
• the relevant guidance.

8. Mr X and the Council now had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Energy grants – background and policy

Sustainable warmth competition

9. The Government’s sustainable warmth competition was overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and ran between January 2022 and March 2023. It was referred to as the LAD3 Scheme. This was extended in April 2023. All works had to be completed by 30 September 2024, with the option to request an extension from the BEIS.
10. The scheme offered a grant intended to support low-income households to increase the energy efficiency of homes and thereby reduce the cost of energy bills.
11. Councils applied for the funding and decided how they would identify potentially eligible households. The competition specified funding should be targeted at the least energy efficient properties (EPC rating E, F and G). It said the grant should improve a property’s EPC rating to C or above. Amongst other requirements, it specified councils should use a ‘fabric first approach’ of insulation and heat loss prevention measures to the fabric of the building, before using other energy efficiency measures such as solar power installation.

The Council’s scheme

12. The Council’s Green Home Grants Team determined eligibility for the scheme. Responsibility for carrying out a survey of the property and application of the relevant criteria was contracted out to an external provider (the Contractor). Paragraph 4, above, applies to this complaint.
13. The Council was required to follow a process of compliance known as PAS 2035 Recommendations for energy efficiency measures were made by qualified Retrofit Coordinators employed by the Contractor and based on data provided by industry software packages.
14. Recommendations were based on a Retrofit assessment in compliance with a standard assessment procedure (SAP). This led to an Improvement Options Evaluation (IOE) and Retrofit Plan.
15. This Plan was then reviewed by the Council before the proposals being sent to the applicant.

PAS 2035 (2019) process

16. This set out the process to be followed by the Council/Contractor. It included the following requirements:

• Establish and agree intended outcomes with the householder.
• Carry out a risk assessment.
• Conduct an assessment of the dwelling.
• Prepare a retrofit design specification.
• Provide advice to the householder after completion of the IOE

17. What happened
18. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
19. Mr X is a homeowner. His property is single glazed and has a low energy efficiency rating. He believed replacing the old wooded framed windows and doors would be the best way to reduce his energy consumption.
20. In 2022, Mr X applied for grant funding under the LAD3 Scheme. Although he applied too late, he was put on a waiting list, should more government funding become available.
21. In April 2023, the Council contacted Mr X explaining further government funding had been released and he may be eligible for a grant. He was told the Council would process his application. On 9 May 2023, he was told the Contractor would carry out a survey of Mr X’s property on 18 May 2023. The Contractor completed an Energy Performance Certificate. This recorded Mr X’s single glazed windows as having a “very poor” energy rating. Replacement double glazing would cost between £3300 and £6500 and would yield a typical yearly saving of £186. The Certificate also stated solar panels costing £3500 - £5500 would reduce Mr X’s energy bills by £690.
22. The following month, the Council wrote to Mr X advising his grant application was successful. The survey determined Mr X was eligible for a grant to fund solar panels.
23. When he contacted the Council for an explanation, he was told the cost of double glazing was over £13,000. This was above the £10,000 threshold set by the scheme and could not be installed before the September deadline.

Mr X’s complaint

24. Mr X was both disappointed and surprised that his windows and doors would not be replaced. In his opinion this would have been the most cost-effective way of meeting the objectives of the scheme and reducing his energy bills.
25. He carried out his own research and complained to the Council about the following matters.
1. The Council purposefully delaying in processing his application to prevent double glazing being a feasible option because of the September deadline.
2. Mr X was treated differently to other applicants. Mr X was aware of other residents that had been awarded grant funding for double glazing after he was refused. Based on his own research, including information obtained from a freedom of information request, showed 85 properties had been offered double glazing and/or replacement doors. The Council has obtained an extension from the relevant government department to allow the works to be completed after the LAD3 deadline.
3. The cost of double glazing used in the assessment was not accurate, and unfairly influenced the outcome. Mr X’s own research showed a much lower figure and data from government guidance gave a much lower average cost.
4. The decision to fund solar panels was contrary to “fabric first” principle, set out in the guidance.
5. The Council/Contractor did not follow the procedure set out in PAS 2035.
26. His complaint was not upheld. Disappointed by this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He also complained to his MP.

The Council’s position

27. In response to both Mr X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council’s position is as follows.

• There was no unreasonable delay between the time the Council was told about the additional grant funding and processing Mr X’s claim.
• The “fabric first” principal was not as straightforward at Mr X believed it to be, due to supplementary and sometime conflicting government guidance regarding double glazing. Several other factors and variables influenced how decisions were made, and every property is unique. For this reason, is not possible to make assumptions about other assessments and recommendations.
• Only 20 properties received double glazing under LAD3, 13 of which were inherited from the previous funding stream (LAD2).
• Costings used during the assessment process are only estimates and may increase when the actual costings are provided by the supplier.

Analysis

28. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question the Council’s decision because someone disagrees with it. We can only decide if there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
29. Within this context, I will consider Mr X’s areas of concerns about the decision-making process below.

Delay

30. The Council has explained it received notification of extra government funding on 20 April 2023. 100 potential applicants were contacted to check if they still wanted to proceed. Once this was complete, they had to be inputted onto the system, ready for transfer to the Contractor. Mr X was contacted by the Contractor on 9 May 2023. This took 10 working days.
31. Taking into consideration this timeline set out above, I do not find there was unreasonable delay in this case. In this case the Council has explained it had to process the 100 new applicants alongside existing claims. Although Mr X believes it was a simple task to process his application that should have been done straight away in April.
32. I have seen no evidence of the Council employing delaying tactics to influence the outcome of the assessment.

Inconsistent decision making

33. Mr X says he is aware of 85 other properties who have received double glazing under the LAD3 scheme. The Council has disputed this figure and says it is far lower. I have seen no evidence to support what Mr X has said. The Council has accepted a relatively small number of applicants received such funding, many under a different funding stream.
34. Mr X correctly identified the Council installed some double glazing after the LAD3 “tools down” date. Whilst I understand Mr X’s concerns about lack of consistency, the fact some properties have benefited from replacement doors and windows, even after the deadline, does not necessarily mean there was fault by the Council.
35. This is because every property was unique, and many variables, not just the ones highlighted by Mr X, influenced the outcome of the assessment. The time limitation was not the only reason why double glazing was not offered to Mr X. This also explains why the Council decided to request an extension to complete some installations to specific properties and not Mr X’s.
36. I also accept the Council’s argument that published government statistics about double glazing installations cannot be relied upon in the way Mr X has because several schemes overlapped and consolidated statistics were produced.

Inflated costings

37. Mr X is concerned the Council inflated the cost of double glazing in order to ensure it was not a cost-effective solution. In support of this, he has referred the Ombudsman to the Contractor’s IOE estimated the cost to be £8500. The SAP table increased this cost significantly to £13,200.
38. In response to this the Council explained costings in the IOE are intended as a guide only and are generated by the supporting software package. The actual cost is only established once confirmed by the supplier.
39. In the absence of any evidence to show costs were deliberately inflated, and taking into consideration the Council’s explanation for the increased cost, I do not find there was fault here.

Failure to comply with PA 2035

40. I have been provided with copies of the IOE and Medium-Term Improvement Plan completed by the Contractor after the survey of Mr X’s property.
41. Mr X identified several inaccuracies and omissions in the Contractor’s survey of his property. He says this casts doubt on whether the outcome was correct.
42. Of great significance to Mr X was the Contractor’s failure to identify, and take account of, the poor state of repair of his windows. He says this was in breach of PAS 2035. This stated the survey should identify, “the location and severity of existing construction defects or structural defects”. Mr X had provided the Ombudsman with several photographs of his window frames. I agree they provide evidence of disrepair. But in my view, disrepair is not the same as a construction or structural defect. For this reason, I do not consider the failure to mention the condition of the window frames within the survey to be fault.
43. Mr X also complains about the Contractor’s breach of PAS 2035 (paragraph 8.4.1) because the survey did not include “dimensions of all windows and door openings”.
44. Having reviewed the survey, I have found it did not include this information. However, the survey did include a sketch plan annotated with a measurement that possibly indicated the total glazed area (20 square metres). But this is not certain from the available evidence. I consider this to be fault.
45. However, I am unable to say, on the balance of probabilities, the outcome would have been different had this fault not occurred. This is because there were several other variables that will have influenced the measures proposed. For this reason, injustice is limited to Mr X’s frustration about the guidance not being followed. This injustice requires a remedy.

Failure to adopt principle of “fabric first”

46. Mr X also claims the Council failed to abide by the principle of “fabric first”. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained why this was not as clear cut as Mr X believed it to be because of conflicting government guidance (paragraph 27 above). For example, Sustainable Warmth guidance, “expect(s) councils to focus on measures that will help lower household energy bills…and qualify why measures that are typically less cost effective such as double glazing or solar PV are being installed”.
47. Taking this into account, the Council says it would have to have good reasons to justify double glazing. In this case the annual energy cost savings of solar PA was significantly higher than double glazing.
48. PAS 2035 also states that, “although ‘fabric first’ is often a cost-effective approach, other issues dictate different priorities”.
49. This supports the Council’s position that what may seem to be an obvious outcome, may not always be so. The Council has provided both Mr X and the Ombudsman with a detailed explanation as to why it was unable to support his preferred option. It is not necessary for the purpose of this decision statement to go into the detail of this due to its technical nature. However, having reviewed all the available evidence, I am satisfied there was no fault by the Council in its decision-making process because government criteria was taken into consideration and had due regard to the overall objectives of both delivering affordable warmth and emission reductions.
50. While I appreciate Mr X strongly disagrees with this assessment, the Ombudsman cannot interfere with the outcome.

Failure to follow the process set out in PAS 2035

51. PAS 2035 expected the Contractors to explain to Mr X why specific energy efficiency measures were considered appropriate. This would cover issues such as fuel cost savings, capital costs, constraints and possible incompatibilities. This should have been done once the IOE and Medium-Term Improvement Plan were completed. This did not happen. There is no record of a conversation between Mr X and the Contractor at this stage in the procedure. Instead, Mr X was sent copies of both documents and invited to accept or decline the proposal.
52. Mr X expected replacement windows to be the most cost-effective way of improving his energy efficiency. Why this was not the case should have been explained to Mr X before he was asked to accept the proposal. This was a requirement of PA 2035. This fault denied Mr X the opportunity to understand its rationale. While this was fault, I do not believe it affected the overall outcome. I say this because, the Council has since provided Mr X with a detailed explanation for making the decision it did. Taking into account the overall energy cost savings in favour of solar panels, I find, on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the outcome would have been the same if the correct process had been followed.
53. However, I accept the fault did cause uncertainty and frustration to Mr X. This is an injustice that requires a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the Contractor and make the following recommendations to the Council.
55. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £200. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice he experiences.
3. Review its internal procedures (and that of any relevant third party contractor) to ensure any similar grant schemes follow the correct procedure, specifically around the requirement to discuss options with householder and include relevant dimensions within the survey.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation. I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed to action my recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman