Summary: We have not found the Council at fault for how it responded to Ms X’s complaint about the accessibility of Company 1’s complaints procedure. We have found the Council at fault for not taking its own view on a resolution to Ms X’s complaint about the distress and frustration caused by poor coordination of works in Ms X’s home, including deciding whether Ms X was entitled to compensation. The Council has agreed to act to address the uncertainty caused by considering the matter again and providing a written decision to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the actions of an organisation delivering home improvements on the Council’s behalf. Ms X complains:
1. The complaints procedure for the scheme was inaccessible and the complaints handling delayed.
2. There were no reasonable adjustments made for Ms X as part of the procedure.
3. The works were poorly organised, with missed and duplicated appointments and poor contractor conduct.
2. Ms X says these matters affected her health and wellbeing, affected her role as a carer and caused avoidable distress and frustration. Ms X wants the Council to accept responsibility, address the highlighted issues with the complaints and reasonable adjustment procedures, and pay compensation.

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. 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.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Home Upgrade Grant (HUG) Scheme

8. The HUG scheme is a government programme intended to improve energy efficiency and heating for low-income households in poorly insulated homes, which are not connected to the gas grid.
9. The scheme is delivered through local authorities, rather than directly through central government. Typically, local authorities submit bids to central government, which awards funding for the scheme, subject to authorities meeting specified criteria. Authorities can bid individually, or sometimes submit joint bids based on a geographical area.
10. Successful authorities will then administer their local scheme and appoint delivery partners and contractors to complete the work. Eligible households within a local authority district are identified and offered upgrades to their homes to make them more energy efficient. Eligible households do not normally pay towards the upgrades, as the work is funded through the grant.
11. The specific responsibilities of each party will depend on how delivery of the local scheme is structured.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

12. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
13. The Council appointed Company 1 as its managing agent for the HUG scheme. The Council and Company 1 entered into a contract that set out the roles and responsibilities of both parties.
14. Ms X’s household was eligible for upgrade work through the HUG scheme in the Council’s district. In late March 2024, Company 1 provided Ms X with a quote for applicable works. This quote included insulation work, ventilation work and solar panel installation. From the correspondence viewed, I understand Ms X also sought additional works, agreed directly with Company 1, which Ms X would pay for directly.
15. Between May 2024 and August 2024, Ms X exchanged correspondence with a contractor carrying out the specified works on Company 1’s behalf. The emails I have viewed show Ms X raising multiple concerns about contractor conduct and attendance, and the quality and progress of the work.
16. In October 2024, Ms X complained to Company 1. Ms X set out her experiences of missed appointments and poor-quality work. Ms X said her complaint concerned:
• Poor service and work quality.
• Missed appointments, with Ms X having to take multiple days off, leading to a loss of earnings.
• Company 1 failing to account for Ms X and her partner’s health and disabilities when arranging the work, or considering making reasonable adjustments for them.
• Company 1 failing to provide Ms X with a copy of its complaints procedure.
17. Ms X sought:
• Company 1 and its contractors to put in place a policy for supporting disabled customers.
• Improvements to Company 1’s service, to prevent recurrence.
• A review of Company 1’s complaints procedure.
• Accessible support in using the newly-installed solar panels.
• Compensation for lost days of work, and the avoidable frustration and distress caused.
18. Company 1 responded to Ms X’s complaint on 21 October 2024. It said:
• It would work with its contractor on establishing a more comprehensive policy to support vulnerable individuals.
• It would review Ms X’s experience to identify ways to prevent the situation occurring for others. Company 1 said this would include creating clear written information about likely timescales for works and possible levels of disruption.
• It would review its complaints procedure to identify improvements and assess why the procedure did not work in Ms X’s case.
• It would work with its contractor to provide user-friendly materials around use of the solar panels.
• It had followed up with its contractor about a specific incident of poor conduct towards Ms X. It said the contractor would be issuing a written apology and a voucher as compensation.
19. Ms X was unhappy with Company 1’s reply. On 21 November 2024, Company 1 wrote to the Council. It explained it had received a complaint from Ms X, summarising the details and its response. It noted Ms X was dissatisfied and intended to escalate the matter. Company 1 said Ms X may write to the Council about this.
20. On 26 November 2024, Ms X forwarded her complaint to the Council. She said Company 1’s response did not address her concerns and she was still seeking the same outcomes.
21. The Council wrote to Ms X on 2 December 2024, advising it had received her submission. It said it would follow up with Company 1 on Ms X’s concerns. On the same day, the Council wrote to Company 1. Summarised:
• The Council said Ms X had detailed her re-booked visits, missed appointments, frequent phone calls and general disruption. The Council said from the detail provided, Ms X’s experience had been poor, and Company 1’s previous email had not indicated the extent of Ms X’s poor experience.
• The Council said it had not seen an apology from Company 1 or its contractor to Ms X. The Council also said the complaint should have been escalated further and been responded to by another staff member, given part of Ms X’s complaint concerned the staff member who had responded to her complaint.
• The Council said it was unclear why Ms X had to follow up with Company 1 and its contractors so often, as there were others who should have been managing these concerns.
• The Council noted Ms X had not received any compensation from the contractor, and Company 1 had not addressed Ms X’s request for compensation for avoidable frustration and inconvenience.
• The Council sought a copy of Company 1’s complaints procedure. It also sought details of what Company 1 had done to update its policy, the outcome of its review of Ms X’s concerns, details of any apologies offered, and confirmation of whether Ms X had received guidance on how to use the solar panels installed.
22. Company 1 provided the Council with copies of its complaints procedure. The Council noted the policy had not yet been amended. On 18 December 2024, the Council sent to Ms X a copy of Company 1’s complaints procedure, as well as other updates it had received. It noted Company 1’s policy review was outstanding and said it had asked about this. It was also awaiting other updates. Ms X said the complaint procedure was still lacking, she had not received any updates about general compensation, and she intended to take the matter further. In response, the Council said it had sought an update from Company 1 on the outstanding actions and information. It asked Ms X what level of compensation she sought and for what reason. It said Company 1 had said it had agreed compensation for a specific incident of poor contractor conduct only.
23. Following a meeting between the Council and Company 1, the Council wrote to Ms X on 15 January 2025 to follow up on the outstanding points:
• It provided details on how the solar panel installation functioned.
• The Council said it had asked Company 1 to arrange a visit to check the system was functioning correctly and explain how it worked.
• The Council said Company 1 had decided its complaints policy did not need amendments, having reviewed it in November 2024. The Council set out changes Company 1 had made to its written communications for vision-impaired people.
• The Council said Company 1 would tailor its services to customers with additional needs, if the customers made Company 1 aware of what those needs were at the outset. The Council said Ms X had not disclosed her disability to Company 1 or its contractors initially, so it could not make specific adjustments.
• The Council said Company 1’s contractors had allocated a single point of contact to Ms X following difficulties with appointments and quality of works, and Ms X had been satisfied with the work completed in July 2024.
• Company 1 said it would not consider further compensation, beyond the voucher for the specific incident of contractor conduct. The Council said this was because Company 1 did not take any responsibility for loss of earnings and it believed all communication and installation concerns had been resolved when works were completed. Company 1 had suggested Ms X contact Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC) to pursue this point further if she remained dissatisfied.
24. On 4 February 2025, the Council asked Ms X if it could arrange for its contract administrator (Company 2) to visit Ms X and check the system. On 6 February 2025, Ms X responded to the Council, agreeing to the visit from Company 2. Ms X also set out her dissatisfaction with the Council’s response, saying neither Company 1 nor the Council had addressed her concerns, or properly considered compensation for frustration caused by poor coordination and communication while the work was carried out.
25. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in February 2025. The Council said it would formally respond to Ms X’s complaint.
26. On 13 March 2025, the Council responded to Ms X at stage one of its complaints procedure. It largely reiterated the information it had already provided. On compensation, the Council said it had asked Ms X for more details about the compensation she had sought in correspondence in January and February 2025, but had not received a response. It said it understood this was important to Ms X and would assist further if needed. It said it had arranged for Company 2 to check Ms X’s system, leading to advice for Ms X on how to use it. It said it could only advise on works funded by the HUG scheme and some of the work had been agreed between Ms X and Company 1 directly. It said any work agreed directly was beyond the Council’s remit.
27. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure. The Council responded on 1 April 2025. The Council said it would not escalate the complaint further, as the outcome would not change. On compensation, it said Company 1 had offered compensation for the poor contractor conduct. It said the ongoing work to the solar panel system fell outside the HUG scheme, so Ms X would need to liaise with Company 1 directly.

Council’s submissions to the Ombudsman

28. The Council told the Ombudsman:
• It proactively supported Ms X to address the issues that fell within its remit.
• Company 1 was initially unaware of Ms X’s disability. The Council said Company 1 had since apologised and made clear it could make adjustments as needed. The Council said it had reinforced to Company 1 the importance of proactively seeking and providing reasonable adjustments for all customers that needed them.
• The Council accepted there were organisational failings in the delivery of works, including missed and duplicated appointments. The Council said it had apologised for these failings, noting Company 1 had appointed a single point of contact to address Ms X’s concerns at the time.
• The Council said Company 1’s contractor had offered compensation for a specific incident of poor conduct. It said it had asked Ms X for details on what further compensation she sought, but had not received a response.
• The Council said it had made numerous changes to improve how it administered schemes. These changes included an improved initial assessment to identify any required reasonable adjustments. The Council said it had also made changes to its commissioning arrangements and established a clear policy that private arrangements between residents and contractors were not permitted. The Council said it accepted no liability for the actions of Company 1 concerning any private arrangements made outside the scope of the grant scheme.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

29. The HUG scheme is not an example of a contractor acting on the Council’s behalf to discharge a statutory administrative function, as the HUG scheme is not statutory or mandatory. Participation in the scheme is conditional on an authority making a successful application for funding. The Council enters into a contract with other parties and acts as overall administrator to that contract, ensuring it is fulfilled to the terms specified by the grant. The contract sets out the roles and responsibilities of each party.
30. Ms X’s complaint largely concerned Company 1’s complaints procedure being inaccessible and its failure to consider making reasonable adjustments. The complaint was not about the Council’s own complaints procedure. Company 1’s standalone procedures are outside of the Council’s remit and any control the Council might have over another organisation’s procedures through the contract is limited. The evidence I have seen shows the Council highlighted Ms X’s concerns to Company 1, sought evidence of the changes Company 1 said it would make, and updated Ms X as to the responses it received. These are the actions I would expect the Council to take. I have not found the Council at fault for how it followed up these concerns on Ms X’s behalf with Company 1. I positively note the changes the Council says it has made to future scheme frameworks to ensure it has more control in these areas, particularly around exploring the need for adjustments in initial contact.
31. The other substantive part of Ms X’s complaint concerns compensation requested due to distress caused by poor workmanship and missed appointments. I have viewed the contract between the Council and Company 1. The contract sets out that day-to-day complaint handling about the works is the responsibility of Company 1, which is expected to keep records of the complaints and the actions taken to address them. Company 1 is expected to share these records with the Council for the purposes of effective oversight of the contract.
32. However, the contract also contains a clause allowing the Council to decide to directly investigate any complaint reported to it by Company 1, or by any other party. The contract says if the Council decides to investigate, it may decide what actions are needed to resolve the complaint and can instruct Company 1 to take these actions.
33. In its complaint response, the Council said Company 1 had offered a voucher for a specific incident of poor contractor conduct. However, it said Company 1 did not believe further compensation was warranted. The Council also told Ms X and the Ombudsman concerns about any work arranged directly between Ms X and Company 1 would be outside the scope of the contract and not for the Council to address.
34. I agree any works arranged directly between Ms X and Company 1 would not be for the Council to consider. However, Ms X’s complaint also described disruption linked to works delivered under the contract. These included works to the bathroom and kitchen fans, and loft insulation. The Council said Company 1 had appointed a single point of contact to help address these concerns, suggesting this resolved the disruption. However, correspondence shows many of the missed appointments and disruptions Ms X described occurred after the single point of contact was appointed. The Council appears to have conflated the disruption linked with the privately arranged works with the disruption linked to works carried out under the contract.
35. The Council’s response shows it put forward Company 1’s position on compensation. It does not show it considered whether it should use its contractual power to directly investigate, or take its own view on whether compensation was warranted for the disruption Ms X described.
36. I have found the Council at fault for failing to consider whether it should take its own view on a resolution to Ms X’s complaint.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

37. Because the Council did not consider its power to investigate and take its own view on a resolution to Ms X’s complaint, we cannot say what decision it would have made had it done so. This creates uncertainty over whether the Council would have decided Ms X was entitled to some compensation. This uncertainty is itself an injustice to Ms X.
38. I note the Council previously sought information from Ms X about what compensation she sought, though says it did not receive a response. It is positive the Council sought this information and that it was willing to consider the matter further. However, based on its previous approach, it appears the Council may have intended to refer any information it received back to the contractor for a decision. I would note the contractual clause highlighted affords the Council discretion to directly consider any evidence it receives and reach its own independent view.
39. I therefore recommend the Council act to remedy the uncertainty caused, by now taking its own view on a resolution to Ms X’s complaint and whether she is entitled to compensation as a result of the disruption experienced. The Council should consider any evidence Ms X wants to submit and then issue Ms X with a written decision, including any relevant explanation of its reasons.

Back to top

Action

40. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Invite Ms X to submit any information or evidence she wants the Council to consider. The Council should then reach its own view on an appropriate resolution to Ms X’s complaint, including whether she is entitled to compensation for the disruption experienced. The Council should then set out its decision and the reasons for the decision.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman