12. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question.
13. If we think there was a negative impact, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right. If we think the failings had an impact that has not been put right, we will usually investigate in more detail.
14. Having done this, we consider BEIS acted in line with agreed terms and conditions, and its own advice. We have explained our decision further below.
15. To understand how BEIS should administer the scheme we have looked at the information available on its website at the time. The BEIS website explains that all work must be completed by a registered installer. It adds that, ‘occasionally circumstances may arise that are fully beyond your control. In such a situation please contact the scheme administrator as soon as possible to assess if a short extension could be considered (subject to exceptional circumstances).’ The absolute cut off to have work completed and redeem the voucher was November 2021.
16. We have also referred to the Terms and Conditions of the scheme. For Mr S to have been accepted onto the scheme he would have needed to agree to these in advance. Section 35 is about changes to someone’s circumstances - specifically getting a different installer. It sets out that if such a change happens then BEIS will have to agree to it, but ‘There is no guarantee that the Scheme Administrator will agree the change…’.
17. Further, Section 38 explains why BEIS will cancel someone’s voucher, if ‘your installer has ceased to be Registered for the purposes of the Scheme for relevant type of Eligible Measure’. Effectively, if the installer is no longer part of the scheme, then the voucher will be cancelled.
18. We have also considered our Principles of Good Administration. These set out that organisations should act according to their statutory powers and duties and any other rules governing the service they provide. They should treat people fairly and consistently, and ensure customers are clear about their entitlements.
19. Mr S complained to BEIS about his problem on 7 September 2021 and it responded on 9 October. It explained that guidance available online at the time said, ‘Any changes requested after 31 August 2021 are highly likely to be refused, as there will not be enough time to process the changes, issue a new voucher, and allow for the work to be completed and the voucher to be redeemed, all before its expiry date’.
20. Its second-tier response pointed to the terms and conditions Mr S agreed to. These set out that BEIS had the right to cancel the voucher and this is what happened.
21. Having considered the facts of the case it is completely understandable that Mr S feels disappointed and let down by BEIS’s decision. This is made worse as it was through no fault of his own that the works could not go on.
22. In also considering what happened we have seen that BEIS had a completely reasonable deadline for using 31 August as a cut-off date. It declined to grant an extension, and this was in line with the information available on its website at the time. This was also consistent with the information available in the terms and conditions that Mr S agreed to. By following its guidelines appropriately, and comparing it to similar cases we have received, we consider BEIS also acted in line with our principles.
23. Although undoubtedly disappointing and exceptionally unfortunate for Mr S, we have seen that BEIS acted in line with the relevant standards. We have therefore decided not to consider his complaint further.