Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of various works to improve the energy efficiency of his home. We have found fault by the Council which caused Mr X avoidable distress, inconvenience and frustration. In addition to the actions the Council has already taken it has agreed to make an additional payment of £1,000 to provide a suitable remedy to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about inadequate handling by the Council of various works to improve the energy efficiency of his home. In particular, Mr X says the Council has not resolved problems with an Air Source Heat Pump which resulted in high electricity use.
2. Mr X says because of the Council’s fault he has suffered avoidable distress and expense.

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. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened. The amount of information provided by Mr X and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
8. Mr X has lived in his property for nearly 50 years. It is a bungalow and had night storage heaters with economy seven and solar panels which Mr X and his wife had funded themselves.
9. A company contacted Mr X independently in June 2020 offering to install cavity wall insulation (CWI) to his property. This company was listed as an approved contractor on the Council’s website to undertake this work using a particular funding scheme the ‘LA Flex scheme’.
10. The Council does not endorse specific installers but does ask them to provide details of their qualifications, policies and accreditations. A list of those contractors is then available on the Council’s website.
11. The company stated in its emails with Mr X that they were registered and guaranteed with the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency (CIGA). This was not the case. The work was not covered by a guarantee with CIGA.
12. The work was subcontracted to another firm and the CWI was not undertaken correctly which led to significant damp within a short period of the installation.
13. Using a different insurance backed guarantee scheme, another company removed the insulation but did so incorrectly. This left the property with holes that were temporarily filled and damp insulation blocking ventilation which caused issues of black mould throughout the property.
14. During this period an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) was fitted under the Warm Homes Fund Grant which was administered by the Council in partnership with an energy company. This installation was substandard as subsequently identified by a report from the manufacturer.
15. However, during the same period the CWI had been removed resulting in the ASHP no longer being efficient in heating Mr X’s home and Mr X’s costs were significantly more than his previous night storage heaters.
16. Mr X had applied for funding for assistance with obtaining new CWI but was advised this could not take place as there was still insulation remaining in the cavity wall. The energy company was also unwilling to undertake work on the property until the CWI was fully extracted.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

17. Mr X complained to the Council on 4 January 2024. Mr X outlined the various faulty works above which had caused damage to his property. Mr X also complained about the advice the Council had provided about the installation of an ASHP to replace his old night storage heaters and delay in the process. Mr X advised the ASHP manufacturer had stated a heat loss calculation was needed as it was suspected the ASHP or radiators were not the correct size to heat the property effectively. Mr X stated it was costing more or as much to heat his property as when he was relying on his old night storage heaters.
18. The Council visited Mr X in January to discuss his complaint. The above background was discussed and Mr X explained he wanted to have his home back, with insulated walls and a heating system that was efficient and affordable.
19. The Council noted Mr X had viewed all the schemes as Council schemes and the installers as approved/endorsed by the Council. The Council has acknowledged its website was not clear that it had no authority over suppliers and the list did not clearly state the Council was not endorsing the companies. It was further noted that progress could not be made until the remaining CWI was removed. New CWI or other appropriate insulation could be installed using available funding but it was considered prudent to arrange an independent survey to establish the right measures for the property. The Council considered that if new wall insulation was installed it may be necessary for some technical calibration to the ASHP to take into account the property would now be insulated.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 17 January. The Council stated:

• the initial CWI company had provided all the relevant documentation to apply to the LA Flex scheme
• the application did not contain CIGA accreditation although the Council accepted the emails from the company to Mr X stated CIGA were their insurance backed guarantee provider
• although the work was subcontracted, the Council would expect the main contractor to have ensured the standard of work met their own accredited standards
• another company did not remove all the insulation and this was causing further damp issues
• Trading Standards had advised the issue was a civil matter
• a different guarantee scheme had stated the cavity should not be refilled
• a chartered surveyor would need to be instructed to establish the most suitable form of insulation
• the installation of the ASHP was remedied by the energy company although it was accepted Mr X was not fully satisfied with the placing of pipes
• the Council did refer Mr X for an ASHP on the basis it would be more efficient and cheaper to run which is now no longer the case
• it was unable to progress new wall insulation until the old insulation was removed

21. The Council partly upheld Mr X’s complaint as:

• all the schemes Mr X received funding from had been affiliated to the Council even if it did not have direct responsibility or accountability for all of them
• it should have acted on Mr X’s previous complaint
• Mr X was unable to progress with any other installations until the poor work from the initial scheme was rectified

22. The Council did not accept it was directly responsible for the problems that had arisen but apologised for what had happened and proposed seeking the removal of the remaining CWI. It would then use the funding available to instruct a Chartered Surveyor to complete a survey of Mr X’s property to establish what type of wall insulation was appropriate. The Council would then arrange for the recommended measure to be installed using the grant funding.
23. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. Mr X did not consider the Council had dealt adequately with his complaint as he did not believe the ASHP was sufficient to effectively and efficiently heat his home.
24. The Council provided a response at the second stage of its complaint procedure on 11 March. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and found:

• Mr X had appointed a contractor to install CWI from a self-generating list of assured contractors from the Council website
• the appointed contractor subcontracted the work to an uncredited (by the Council) third party
• the workmanship was poor and the CWI caused substantial damp and condensation as a result of faulty installation – the insulation also blocked air vents and filled the loft cavity with debris
• Mr X had tried to get the CWI problem resolved and the contractor went bankrupt
• the insurance guarantee was activated by Mr X and the CWI was removed
• subsequent tests have revealed the insultation was not effectively removed leaving damp spots bridging the cavity
• parallel to the CWI issues the Council advised on and gave a grant for the installation of ASHP
• after multiple problems with the ASHP the manufacturer tested the system and found multiple problems including pipes running cold and hot in the wrong direction
• the energy company remedied these issues
• however, by this time the defective insulation had been removed and the designed system was inefficient for the construction of the property that now existed
• the Council was offering to fix the CWI problems and to then either install decent CWI or to install external wall insultation (EWI) with a 100% grant
• in addition the Council would carry out at its own cost, an independent heat loss calculation as Mr X did not believe the ASHP boiler installed under the Council’s contractor’s specification had sufficient heating output for his property

25. The Council apologised for what had happened and offered the following to put things right:

• to remove the residual CWI, undertake a survey and then install wall insulation based on the recommendations of the survey (as previously agreed in its Stage 1 complaint response)
• after completion of the wall insulation works a heat calculation by an independent organisation to be undertaken and the Council agreed to be bound by the recommendations of this report
• if the assessment recommended the initial calculations by its contractor were wrong then the Council would provide either through its own resources or via its energy contractor the right heating system specification
• however, if the system had the correct capacity and the heat calculation confirmed this then the Council would take no further action
• £500 for the years of stress caused to both Mr X and his family.

26. The Council confirmed it would amend the wording on its website to ensure better clarity over its involvement with the schemes described.
27. Following the above complaint outcome, the Council has explained Mr X wanted EWI. The Council arranged for photographs of previous EWI work to be provided to Mr X and visited him to discuss the work in July. The CWI was removed in August and EWI works completed in September.
28. During this period the ASHP was left outside for several days. The ASHP was reinstalled in early October and the independent heat loss calculation completed. A soakaway was agreed and the need for additional radiators identified.
29. There was still some outstanding snagging by mid-October. The ASHP was faulty at the start of November and repaired under warranty. Mr X had reported a fault with recorded energy use. A detailed analysis from the energy company project manager found a fault with the hot water disinfection cycle which caused a spike while the cylinder tried to carry out the cycle once a week.  This was explained to Mr X. The final ASHP manufacturer’s report from the end of December highlighted several issues these were rectified before the end of February 2025.
30. The Council wrote to Mr X towards the end of March 2025 and confirmed that:

• the remaining CWI had been removed
• the survey was completed
• EWI had been installed
• heat loss calculations had been received and additional radiators installed
• £500 had been paid to Mr X
• a full appraisal of the ASHP by the manufacturer had been completed and the issues they had identified had been resolved
• an analysis of energy bills before and after the fitting of the ASHP and before and after the wall insulation completed (see below)

31. The Council confirmed that a review of Mr X’s energy bills showed the costs had increased significantly since the ASHP was fitted but he had used less energy since the installation. The energy use had decreased each time the heating or insulation was improved over the period from 2021 to 2024. The increased costs were due to changes in the market. The Council suggested Mr X seek advice on changing his tariff as it may not be the most suitable tariff as he was no longer running night storage heaters. It was also noted he may be receiving smaller payments from the tariff associated with his solar panels.
32. The Council has confirmed the warranty for the ASHP was from when it was installed in July 2022 for a period of 3 years.  The Council says the ASHP was not serviced until December 2024 but the recommissioning of the ASHP after the installation of the EWI was sufficient for the manufacturer to be satisfied it had been serviced. Therefore, the warranty was in force until July 2025.
33. Mr X reported a leaking hot water cylinder to the Council in April 2025. The Council arranged for a company to visit Mr X and were provided with photographs from this visit. It was established the leak was a new fault and not related to previous remedial works. Mr X was advised to contact the original installer about the matter or seek a local tradesperson to rectify the situation with both options being at Mr X’s own cost.

My consideration

34. The Council has acknowledged that Mr X had viewed all the schemes as Council schemes and the installers as approved/endorsed by the Council. The Council has further acknowledged its website was not clear that it had no authority over suppliers and the list did not clearly state the Council was not endorsing the companies. The Council has taken action to amend its website. The Ombudsman would welcome this action.
35. The Council also confirmed to the Ombudsman that Mr X initially contacted it about the issues he was experiencing with the CWI in August 2020. The Council accepted in its Stage 1 response in January 2024 that it should have acted on an earlier complaint from Mr X. This is fault.
36. However, I consider the Council has largely taken the action I would expect to see since January 2024 in trying to resolve the issues raised by Mr X. I do consider there was some avoidable delay in agreeing and arranging some of the remedial works. I have taken into account Mr X’s contact and questions including his preference for EWI and wanting to see examples of this before making a decision. I consider this to be understandable given the long history of issues.
37. I am satisfied Mr X and his family suffered avoidable distress, inconvenience and frustration due to the accepted fault and avoidable delay. The Council has already paid £500 to Mr X to acknowledge the stress caused to him and his family. This is in line with our guidance on remedies for symbolic payments to acknowledge distress. However, our guidance also sets out that we may recommend higher payments when the distress is especially severe or over a prolonged period. I consider that to be the case here.
38. It is understandable that Mr X will have a continued degree of uncertainty about the heating system and insulation works. However, I have taken account of the independent survey which informed the eventual insulation outcome, the independent heat loss calculations and additional works as well as the manufacturer’s final report that found the identified issues had been resolved. The analysis of Mr X’s energy bills also does not provide any grounds to recommend a further payment in terms of increased costs. There are also no grounds for me to recommend the Council should be held responsible for the more recent hot water cylinder leak.
39. Mr X’s claims relating to property damage and personal injury would be matters for a civil claim.

Back to top

Action

40. The Council will make an additional payment of £1,000 to Mr X to recognise his avoidable distress, inconvenience and frustration within one month of my final decision.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman