Summary: We found no fault by the Council on Ms C’s complaint of it failing to ensure home improvement works were done and affordable. There were some delays in responding to correspondence and contacting the contractor. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms C complains about the Council failing to ensure home improvements were completed, and financially affordable as promised, after arranging works under a Home Upgrade Grant: as a result, she has been without affordable heating for several years which also means she cannot have a bath which is affecting her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated the following:

• The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
• I have not investigated any complaint Ms C has about the Council that happened before April 2022. This is because she complained to us in April 2023. We would usually investigate 12 months back from when a complainant complained to us unless there is some good reason why we should exercise discretion to investigate further back in time. I have seen no good reason why we should investigate beyond April 2022.
• This means I will not investigate any complaint she had about the installation of the boiler and its running costs. This is because this was installed in 2019 and she contacted the Council about it in 2020 and the Council arranged for the manufacturer of it to visit to check, which it did. I am satisfied, therefore, she was aware of the change in running costs up to three years before she complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered all the information Ms C sent, the notes I made of the telephone conversations I had with her and three Council officers, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I also saw a contract between the Council and Firm 1, its partnership organisation, which I consider needs to remain confidential. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms C and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Sustainable Warmth Competition (Guidance for Local Authorities)

7. Councils had to apply for funding to be used to improve the energy efficiency of homes inhabited by low-income households in their area. Contractors used had to be TrustMark registered and where applicable, certified under an industry quality assurance scheme.
8. Councils are responsible for ensuring all installers, or delivery partners, collect and provide appropriate information to support monitoring and evaluation.

Home Upgrade Grant scheme: phase 1 (HUG1) and phase 2 (HUG2)

9. The HUG1 scheme was for energy efficient upgrades and low carbon heating for low-income families living off the gas grid. It provided local authorities with funding to help those who could not afford to make the improvements themselves. It was for non mains gas systems. Councils were allocated a set amount of funding for housing in their area and homeowners applied to receive the funding to make improvements to their homes.
10. The HUG2 scheme built on the previous phase and aimed to deliver progress towards statutory fuel poverty target. There was no financial contribution or deposits from owners. The improvements were Energy Efficiency measures, such as wall insulation, Clean Heat measures, such as Air Source Heat Pumps, and Solar Panels, provided the house had sufficient insulation.

What happened

11. The government provided low-income home owners with the chance to apply for a grant to allow them to make upgrades to their homes. This was for those off the gas grid who could apply through a HUG1 and HUG2.
12. Ms C owns her house, has health problems, and lived off the gas grid.
13. I have seen a contract signed by the Council and Firm 1 which was its partner organisation. While this allowed it to subcontract out parts of its responsibilities, the Council would monitor and assess Firm 1’s performance by looking at performance indicators. Firm 1 agreed to provide it with all the information it may reasonably need to monitor and assess its performance. In turn, Firm 1 monitored a sample of installations as part of the quality control process. All monitoring and quality control was done by Firm 1.

Loft insulation and solar panels:

14. The Council received Ms C’s enquiry about a HUG2 in 2022. This was for loft insulation to her single rear extension kitchen, solar panels, with additional ventilation needed in the kitchen.
15. The Council sent no documents to Ms C directly as this was all done through Firm 1 which project managed the entire scheme as it was picked for this role by the Midlands Energy Hub, the organisation providing funding.
16. The Council gave verbal instructions to Firm 1 about the need to ensure Ms C received written instructions and the need for signatures as required.
17. Firm 1 contracted a certified installer (Firm 2), to carry out the works in Ms C’s home. The Council had no direct contract with Firm 2 so all reports about workmanship went through the Council’s complaints procedure. Although it had no direct relationship with Firm 2, it mediated on behalf of clients where Firm 2 carried out works. This is what it did with Ms C. All documentation about the works were between Firm 2 and Ms C.
18. Firm 2 completed the works in 2023 and the Certificate of Practical Completion was signed off by the Council on Ms C’s behalf.
19. Ms C later complained to the Council about the installation of necessary extractor fans which meant her house was even colder and more expensive to heat than before. The Council told Ms C ventilation was needed because of the rules about installing energy efficiency measures, such as solar panels.
20. In March, the Council contacted Firm 1 about the contractor used and its workmanship. By now, Ms C had also complained about a hole in the bathroom ceiling created to access the loft which had not been filled in properly.
21. In May, Firm 1 contacted Firm 2 who thought Ms C was satisfied with all the completed works.
22. In June, she asked the Council to remove the electric boiler, along with all radiators, and for these to be replaced with storage heaters compatible with solar panels. This meant the replacement of the boiler with oil or LPG. The Council replied saying it had funding under HUG2 which Firm 1 said would allow two options. Her options were for electric storage heaters or an Air Sourced Heat Pump with internal wall insulation. Works for both would be very disruptive. Further information about installers would not be available for another two months.
23. Ms C also asked why her Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating was now down from E to F. The EPC is a legal document which provides an energy efficiency rating from A (very efficient) to G (inefficient) about a property’s running costs. It takes account of the potential energy performance of the property (its fabric) and its services (such as heating and hot water, for example). An EPC is needed when selling a property and shows hot costly it will be to heat and light the property.

Electrical storage heaters:

24. Ms C was recently approved for HUG2 for the installation of new high efficiency electric storage heaters. These were not installed until this month as the Council did not know whether she wished to pursue it.

Complaints process:

25. The Council sent Ms C its stage 1 response to her complaint in June 2021. Extra work was done as agreed with her following the response.
26. In February 2022, Ms C emailed the Council but did not say she wanted her complaint to go to stage 2. It was outside of the 20-day time limit set out in the stage 1 letter. Her letter ended by asking it to act to resolve her running cost issues and giving her a heating system which she could afford.
27. In January 2023, almost a year later, Ms C chased the Council about its lack of response. She referred to making a formal complaint. The Council apologised for not responding to the previous email. There followed a series of emails from Ms C about the workmanship concerned with the extractor fan which led to an officer visit. The Council suggested discussing her complaint with her when all works were done.
28. In May, she asked for a response about the work quality and referred to complaining to us.
29. In June, the Council acknowledged her stage 2 complaint and snagging items which it had raised with Firm 1 who contacted Firm 2. A renderer would return back to her property.
30. The Council confirmed a new EPC had to be done because of the age of the previous one. It noted there had been changes in the EPC calculations and software used. It confirmed a secondary fire in the house was now showing on the EPC but had not on the previous one. It had also filled in details about the extension which was not the case previously which was why there were now two loft sections, along with a possible update with the wall type.
31. In September, the Council replied to her complaint under stage 2 of its complaints procedure. This was sent following a visit in June to her home during which she agreed to delay the stage 2 response because of the HUG2, due to be released later that month. The Council:

• accepted contact and communication with it and its contractors were not as ‘timely’ as it should have been and accepted there were times when she was not told about some home visits.
• also explained the EPC rating of her property was reduced from E to F earlier that year with the main heating rated very poor. The Council explained the criteria for EPC certification had changed. In addition, there were other issues with her property such as a lack of insulation. I have also seen a letter from contractors explaining there were changes to the way they now had to complete details for buildings as well as an update to the software which changed the scoring system.

32. In January 2024, the Council said it hoped the replacement of her radiators through a further scheme would have been done by this point and it apologised for that and for any miscommunication she felt had happened.

My findings

33. I found no fault on her complaint about the works completed by Firm 2. When she raised concerns about the extra ventilation installed in her kitchen, the Council explained this was required because of the rules involved when having works for energy efficiency including solar panels. When she raised concerns about the standard of plastering, for example, the Council contacted Firm 1 who arranged for Firm 2 to return to her property to address the issue.
34. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered her reports about the reduction in her EPC rating which obviously worried her. The Council contacted Firm 1 about it and later explained to her that there were several factors involved with her new EPC. It had been done as works were completed. It explained why the new EPC differed from the previous one.
35. There was some delay in responding to some of Ms C’s correspondence. For example, her email sent in February 2022 was not responded to until January 2023, eleven months later. As I am only investigating from April 2022, I have considered the total delay was nine months.
36. In January 2023, she referred to making a complaint. The Council responded by suggesting officers discuss her complaint with her once all the works were done. This was a sensible suggestion as any further works could lead to further reports from her. It also allowed for the opportunity to investigate and arrange for any further works to be done to resolve her concerns about work quality. Indeed, during the summer, after a home visit, Ms C agreed to delay making her stage 2 complaint.
37. The Council accepted contact and communication with its contractors was not as prompt as it could have been. It also accepted there were times she had not been told about planned home visits.
38. On balance, I consider the Council failed to always communicate Ms C’s concerns about workmanship to Firm 1 promptly so it could act on them. As noted, the Council also delayed responding to her email for about 9 months. I am satisfied these delays caused some injustice to Ms C. This was in the form of distress as she had the frustration, and some degree of uncertainty about what, if anything, the Council was doing in response.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. I considered the apology the Council has already given Ms C for failing to deal with her concerns promptly.
40. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. To pay Ms C £100 for the injustice caused by identified fault.
2. To review why these failures in communication happened and act to ensure they are not repeated on future cases.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I found fault on Ms C’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman