Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in relation to a complaint about the installation of a faulty heating system in the complainant’s property. Although the Council funded the installation, it was not responsible for the contractor’s work, and the Council acted appropriately in challenging the contractor over its performance. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Ms M.
2. Ms M complains that, under a Council-run scheme, work to upgrade the heating system in her home was started in November 2024, but left unfinished by the contractor until March 2024. This meant she was left without central heating over winter, which affected her health, and that she had to use portable heaters with increased energy costs.

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. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as heating system installation firms. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms M and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The following chronology is a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a full account of everything that happened, or the full details of all correspondence between the relevant parties.
8. The Council received money from the Government to run a scheme, under which it would fund free home upgrades for eligible people in its area. In 2024, Ms M applied successfully to the Council to upgrade the heating system in her home.
9. In November a contractor selected by the Council began work on Ms M’s property. Although it marked the work as ‘complete’, the new heating system did not work at all. Ms M reported this to the contractor, but despite making appointments to do so, it did not return to repair the system. In December, the contractor wrongly issued a commissioning certificate to Ms M, saying the work was complete.
10. Ms M made further efforts to get the contractor to return over December and January, but it did not, meaning she had no functioning heating system during the winter. Ms M says she had to rely on small portable heaters, which were less efficient and had higher energy costs.
11. In January, the contractor finally returned and formally recognised the system was not working. However, it still did not carry out repair work.
12. In February Ms M made a formal complaint to the contractor. In March, the contractor finally returned and repaired the heating system, which now functioned as intended. Following this, Ms M asked the contractor to provide an amended commissioning certificate, showing the correct dates, and to reimburse her £170 for her additional heating costs over the winter. In response, the contractor agreed to the reimbursement, but did not make the payment at that time.
13. The Council says it first became aware of the situation in April, and that, in May, it “formally [challenged]” the contractor over its performance in this case. Ms M reported further issues with the system, which the contractor returned to fix at the end of the month.
14. Ms M also reported a breakdown in her relationship with the contractor at the time, and asked it to copy the Council into all correspondence. The Council requested the contractor’s senior management take over the handling of the complaint.
15. In July the Council continued to challenge the contractor, including on its failure to provide Ms M with paperwork, and to reimburse her, despite having already agreed to do this. It also provided Ms M with a stage 2 complaint response, which it upheld, agreeing with her complaints about the contractor, and saying it would continue to “advocate” for her in the dispute.
16. With the matter still unresolved to her satisfaction, in October Ms M referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman’s position is that, while a council may delegate its day-to-day operations to private contractors, it retains legal responsibility for the discharge of the relevant administrative duty. Therefore, any complaint a person has about a contractor’s performance should be addressed by the council, as if the operation was being performed by the council itself.
18. In this case, while the Council has been heavily involved in dealing with Ms M’s complaint, it has done so as an interested third party, rather than as the responsible agency. I therefore asked the Council to explain why it did not consider it was directly responsible for the contractor’s performance.
19. The Council replied:

“[Whilst] the council has selected a contractor via procurement to deliver upgrades to households, the agreement to actually carry out works & agree the works to be delivered is between the contractor and the householder ... 

“The role of the council is to act as a grant recipient to manage the funding from [the Government] and work with the contractor to ensure eligibility for the scheme and then to get approval from [the Government] … for the proposed works to be delivered as determined between the contractor and the householder.

“The contractor is the responsible party for provision of applicable warranties for the work & the lodgement of relevant certification … Local Authorities cannot undertake this role or function as only the installers are registered with national organisations such as Trustmark to make such lodgements.”

20. I am satisfied, on the basis of this explanation, that the Council is correct to say it does not bear direct responsibility for the contractor’s work in this case. This being so, I cannot find the Council was at fault for the failed installation of the heating system, or the contractor’s handling of Ms M’s subsequent complaint.
21. And, as the contractor itself does not fall into our jurisdiction, I have no power to make findings against it.
22. This is not to say the Council has no role here. However, I do not see any reason to criticise it. The Council was unaware there had been any problem before April 2025; and, once it became aware, it took the matter seriously, and worked hard to represent Ms M in her dispute with the contractor. I note Ms M has, herself, praised the Council for this.
23. Ms M has explained the contractor eventually paid her the £170 it had originally agreed, to reimburse her excess heating costs, along with an additional £200. Ms M says the contractor made the additional payment without providing any context or explanation, but she believes this was intended as a form of compensation. However, Ms M says she had already told the contractor this was inadequate.
24. I will first say that a payment of £200 for inconvenience and distress is not inconsistent with our published guidance on remedies, and so it is unlikely I would recommend significantly more than this, even if I could make a finding fault here. Putting this to one side though, as this is a matter between Ms M and the contractor, I cannot become involved in this dispute.
25. Similarly, I understand Ms M is still waiting for the contractor to provide necessary certification and documents related to the installation. The Council has confirmed that part of its duty is to ensure the contractor does this; but, as I have explained, I am satisfied with the way the Council has taken up the issue with the contractor and challenged it about this, and the other aspects of Ms M’s complaint. The Council evidently cannot provide the documentation itself, and so I consider the Council has properly discharged this duty, to the best of its ability.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman