Summary: Mr G says the Council’s handling of his application for help to improve his home’s energy efficiency was poor. There was fault causing injustice by the Council. It has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr G, complains the Council failed to properly consider his request for assistance under the Warm Homes Fund which he made in December 2022. He says the Council:
• delayed responding to him
• gave contradictory information
• failed to refer him to alternative assistance
• missed identifying a window which should have been included for repairs.
2. As a result, he and his family were left with a cold home for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with Mr G and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr G and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council’s Warm Homes Fund was a pilot scheme which ran from April 2022 to June 2023. It was a discretionary scheme which was intended to help homeowners cut their fuel bills. Applicants had to meet certain criteria:
• They must be experiencing financial hardship or claiming an income related benefit such as Universal credit or pension credit
• A member of the household must be under 5, over 65 or diagnosed with heart conditions, breathing conditions or at risk of developing these conditions.
7. The scheme was part funded by Greater Manchester Combined Authority and aimed to provide low level interventions such as:
• boiler checks and repairs
• funding basic repairs to contribute to energy efficiency
• provision of energy efficiency and falls prevention measures
• onward referrals to further affordable warmth assistance schemes

What happened

8. In December 2022 Mr G contacted the Council about the Warm Homes Fund. He hoped to receive energy efficiency support or repairs. The Council passed his details to Salford Foundation, a charity which coordinated requests for help under the scheme. It considered he was eligible according to the scheme’s criteria.
9. In January 2023 Mr G asked the Council for an update. It advised him to contact Salford Foundation. When Mr G contacted Salford Foundation, it said it had referred his request to Helping Hands, the Council’s handyperson scheme.
10. In late February Helping Hands visited Mr G’s home. It assessed that works were required to his uneven front drive, to prevent falls. It agreed to carry out this work.
11. On 23 February Mr G complained to the Council that he wanted support to make his home more energy efficient because his double-glazed windows were defective. But Helping Hands told him they did not carry out this work. Mr G said the Warm Homes information leaflet specifically stated the scheme could help improve energy efficiency. He was left feeling frustrated and confused. He asked if the Council could let him know what it could do via the Warm Homes Fund.
12. The Council registered Mr G’s complaint at stage one of its procedure. The Council should have responded within ten working days.
13. In March and April 2023 Mr G chased a response to his complaint. While the Council said it was progressing matters, it did not give Mr G any details.
14. In May 2023 Helping Hands partially completed the works to Mr G’s drive.
15. Later in May, Mr G again asked the Council for a response. An officer replied that he would chase colleagues for a response.
16. On 1 June 2023 a Council officer visited Mr G’s home and carried out an assessment of landlord his windows and doors. He reported that there were “some defects, some of which could not be resolved. Whilst the general shape of the windows is good, some of the fanlights and casements have become warped and will not fit onto the seals fully. The owner has fitted draught excluder to these windows with limited success but in some cases this only causes difficulty in closing the opener and locking it. A number of dg [double glazed] units have failed. There is no evidence of any cracking to suggest movement of the windows. The seal to the window both internally and externally is in good condition.” The officer recorded that four double glazed units had failed.
17. Two weeks later Mr G asked the Council for an update. He received no response and so chased again a week later.
18. On 27 June 2023 the Council contacted Mr G. It apologised for its delay. It said it could not offer any support under the Warm Homes initiative. It explained that because he had double glazed windows which were securely fitted and sealed, and relatively new composite doors, he did not qualify under scheme. However, it said that Helpful Hands could repair the window openers, and carry out work to the draft excluders which may be causing the window opening difficulties. The Council suggested Mr G could consider the ECO4 scheme which provided insulation grants.
19. On 24 July 2023 the Council responded to Mr G’s stage one complaint. The response was overdue by four months. The Council said that:
• The Warm Homes Initiative was a pilot scheme which had now ended. It was for residents with certain medical conditions that are known to worsened by prolonged exposure to cold conditions.
• Windows replacement could be considered if it was assessed that a window was significantly defective and significantly contributing to excess cold.
• Where draught proofing or replacement handles could be installed this would have been considered a more appropriate when a window frame was intact.
• It had assessed Mr G’s property, but it did not consider that any of his windows required replacement under the Warm Homes initiative.
• The Warm Homes Initiative did not cover wall insulation and brickwork repairs. It referred Mr G to the ECO4 and EcoFlex schemes which could provide external wall insulation. It offered to make a referral to the schemes.
• Salford Assist, a Council scheme which provided support to vulnerable residents, may provide heavy duty curtains subject to eligibility.
• The Warm Homes Initiative was to help improve energy efficiency for vulnerable residents with qualifying medical conditions. It was not intended to address wider home maintenance.
20. On 24 July 2023 Mr G complained at stage two of the Council’s procedure that:
• He met the criteria for the Warm Homes Initiative from the start.
• The Council took six months to assess his windows.
• The Council was now saying that curtains and weather tight works were not Warm Homes measures, but for Salford Assist. But the Council’s website specially referred to these measures under Warm Homes.
• In his view the Council should replace his windows because they were significantly defective and a significant contribution to excess cold. His double-glazed units had failed, and the hinges could not be adjusted to give a tight seal. He could not heat almost all his rooms consistently to 20°.
• The Council said Warm Homes was not for general maintenance, so he asked why it repaired his drive. He said officers had continually advised he was eligible for window repairs.
• In his view the Warm Homes application process was mismanaged, poorly considered and applications were not routed to the correct place.
21. The Council acknowledged Mr G’s complaint and said it would reply within 10 working days. However, it had not replied by 8 August. It updated Mr G that the response was taking longer than expected.
22. In late August Mr G asked the Council for information about the criteria it had used to decide whether his home met the Warm Homes criteria. In September Mr G chased a response again saying it was well over ten days since his complaint.
23. On 27 September 2023 the Council responded to Mr G’s stage two complaint. The Council explained the pilot scheme was discretionary and had limited funding. The Council said:
• Salford Foundation acted as a central referral point. It made referrals to health improvement schemes or for physical property assessments to decide works.
• Helping Hands carried out the initial assessment visits to decide if a property was eligible for works. It then considered measures it would undertake or whether further referrals to other partner agencies were required.
• It accepted some referral processes took longer than expected. It apologised and said lessons would be learned to reduce delays in any future programs.
• It reviewed guidance documents for officers about the scheme, detailing eligible work. It said it could consider financial assistance for replacement window frames when the frames were timber and all single glazed only.
• It could agree to window repairs. However, whole house replacement of window frames was not in the pilot’s scope. As the budget was limited, such work would also be cost prohibitive.
• In Mr G’s case Helping Hands’ assessment identified eligible works (drive levelling) which it completed. Helping Hands assessed the windows and identified some mould growth, condensation and water staining. It stated it could not carry out the works and referred the matter back to the Council.
• The Council then arranged a further visit by a housing standards officer. He assessed that the windows were securely fitted double glazed UPVC windows units, and considered they did not require replacement.
• At the inspection, it noted some of the glazed units had internal misting in the gas cavity likely due to failed double glazing seals. The complaint response said this was something it would have considered in scope of the scheme as an eligible repair.
• It noted Mr G’s query about heavy duty curtains. This was an eligible measure under the Warm Homes fund, which Salford Assist delivered. It explained there were eligibility criteria. The Council said it could ask a Salford Assist officer to contact him.
• The Warm Homes fund was not intended to cover general house maintenance. It sought to improve the health of occupants by addressing relatively low level issues. General home maintenance, disability aids and adaptations were separate and the Council could refer to other services where appropriate.
• Helping Hands had completed external repair work to his drive to prevent falls. This was an example of a relatively low level intervention that could have a big impact on preventing hospital admissions.
• Where property repairs were required which were out of scope of the scheme, the Council could refer to the home improvement assistance service. Works under that scheme were subject to service eligibility criteria, and paid for by a loan secured against the property.
• It had referred Mr G to the ECO4 scheme and the eco-flex grant schemes.
24. In early October the Council’s officer visited Mr G with a double-glazing contractor The contractor assessed the four double glazed windows the Council officer had previously identified had failed. He also agreed that the hinges to a rear window should be replaced.
25. In December 2023 the Council’s contractor carried out the work to replace four double glazed units and the rear window hinge.
26. Mr G asked the contractor to check two windows in the rear bedroom as these too had recently shown misting between the panes. Mr G says the contractor agreed these windows had also failed but that it was difficult to tell and it was easier to identify when it was cold.
27. Mr G asked the Council whether it would now consider replacing these two units under the Warm Homes Fund. The Council replied that it would not consider the further units Mr G requested. It said that it considered the works that it had identified on its visits in June and October and it would not consider any further works identified. Mr G commented that the Council’s officer had not looked at these windows and the contractor only looked at the windows the Council identified.
28. In its response to our enquiries the Council said its officer checked all the windows during the inspection and noted their condition. It did not identify that the window in the rear bedroom was defective. It said that the case officer was a competent officer in assessing property defects.
29. The Council also said the contractor did not inform the Council about any additional units that required consideration. The Council checked the latest Energy Performance Certificate for the property from 2019 which rated the windows as adequate in 2019. The property rating was D. It explains properties which were of the most concern were F and G rating. It said it was not appropriate for it to consider additional double-glazing units as the scheme had closed by this point, and the property condition did not require emergency intervention.
30. The Council explained that there were delays in it progressing works to windows because its contractor could not carry out the work as planned. The Council then sourced alternative contractors. The Council says that it informed Mr G regarding the delays and that it was processing his application.

Analysis

31. There was no significant delay by Helping Hands in assessing the work to prevent falls. There was some delay in carrying out this work, but it was not a significant delay and did not cause injustice to Mr G.
32. There was delay in progressing the assessment of Mr G’s windows. While he applied in December 2022 it was not until June 2023 that the Council completed an assessment. This delay was fault.
33. I consider that the Council should have identified earlier that the failed double-glazed units could meet the Warm Homes criteria for repairs under the scheme. This was fault and caused delay which led to frustration and time and trouble for Mr G in pursuing matters.
34. The Council did not have suitable contractors in place for window repairs which led to further delays while it sourced new contractors. It was not until December 2023, that the Council’s contactor installed the new units.
35. Mr G says the Council should have identified the rear window units had failed. He considers the assessment was not thorough. However, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence that the Council’s assessment missed the faulty windows. I do not consider there is fault in the Council’s decision not to consider the windows in December 2023. The scheme had closed at this point and the Council assessed the property condition did not require emergency intervention.
36. There was fault in the Council’s communications and complaint handling. There was a lack of response to Mr G’s requests for updates. There was also significant delay in responses to Mr G’s complaints. This caused frustration and time and trouble for Mr G.
37. I note Mr G complained the Council did not assist with a referral for warm curtains. There was some delay here, but as Mr G did not apply when the Council referred him, I do not consider this caused injustice.
38. The Council has taken satisfactory steps to improve its process should it receive funding for a new scheme of this kind.
39. Mr G commented on an earlier draft of this decision that the Council should pay for his additional heating costs due to the delay in deciding and carrying out the works. I consider that Mrs G may have had slightly higher costs for about two months and the agreed remedy takes account of this.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr G for the time and trouble and frustration caused by its delays.
• Pay Mr G £200 for the impact of its delay, and his frustration and time and trouble due to the faults I have identified.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. We found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman