Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of support and information about the application process for a grant under its Energy Programme. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision and we would not be able to achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of support in the application process for a grant under its Energy Programme. He says the Council should have provided him with more support and advice, assessed his application in more detail and told him early on the quotes he presented would make him ineligible for the grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X sent in.
5. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. In January 2019 Mr X applied for a grant under Councils Energy Programme.
7. Before presenting his application, Mr X consulted various companies to get quotes for installation of solar panels and LED lights in his factory.
8. Mr X considered different quotes and picked the one that he considered to be the most attractive one.
9. Mr X agreed for the provider to put in the grant application on his behalf.
10. In February 2019 the Council accepted Mr X application and confirmed the cost of installation of solar and LED lights is eligible expenditure under the grant he applied for.
11. The Councils issued a grant Voucher to Mr X.
12. After granting the Voucher, the Council discovered that two companies Mr X got quotes from were connected.
13. The Council said that this means Mr X did not get the minimum of 3 independent quotes from different suppliers. It explained the cost of installation of solar light is therefore not eligible expenditure under the grant he applied for.
14. Mr X raised concerns with the timing of this decision as the Council told him about this after he already incurred the capital cost of £47,400.
15. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) contracts the Council to deliver the Energy Programme. It therefore must follow the procurement guidance that MHCLG issued for that Programme.
16. The Council also explained that any award of this grant to an ineligible applicant means the MHCLG will claw back the grant money back from the Council and penalise it. The Council will then claim it back from the applicant, in this case Mr X.
17. Mr X disagrees, and says the Council is responsible for the capital cost he incurred after the Council at first awarded the grant to him.
18. Mr X also complains about the lack of support and advice from the Council. He says that Council should have guided him through the application process. He is also not satisfied with how the Council handled his application.

Assessment

19. Mr X said that Council should have advised him of the application process and what the procurement requirements were. Mr X authorised the contractor to submit the application on his behalf. I consider it the responsibility of the applicant to make sure the application he is putting in is made in line with the requirements. The guidance documents the Council is using are available in the public domain.
20. Mr X also said the Council breached data confidentiality. He should report any breaches of the General Data Protection Regulations(GDPR) to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
21. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s explanation and believes that he is eligible for the grant money.
22. The Council told Mr X as soon as it realised there was an issue with the quotes that Mr X presented in the procurement process. Mr X disagreed and said that the Council has failed to do so, however the Council asked for advice from MHCLG who confirmed its position is correct. I do not consider it likely that we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision.
23. The Council decided, after consulting MHCLG, that Mr X is not eligible for the grant and I do not think that our investigation would lead to a different outcome.
24. Mr X said that his desired outcome is for the Council to award the grant, but our investigation would not be able to recommend such remedy.
25. If Mr X believes the Council was negligent in its actions, the liability would have to be considered by a court.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision and we would not be able to achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman