2. Mrs O complains that BEIS unfairly refused to extend the expiry date of her £10,000 Green Homes Grant voucher (by a week as redress for poor service.
3. This meant she was unable to have a heat pump installed as she could not afford to pay the bill herself. She says this caused her distress and frustration.
4. By bringing her complaint to us, she would like us to recommend BEIS issues her with another £10,000 voucher.
5. From 2020 to 2021 BEIS provided the Green Homes Grant voucher scheme on behalf of the government. The scheme provided £10,000 vouchers for eligible claimants to have energy efficiency improvements made to their homes.
6. On March 2021 Mrs O applied for an air source heat pump (the heat pump) under the scheme. BEIS approved the application and issued her a voucher with a validity period of 90 days. Shortly after this, the supplier Mrs O had chosen to fit the heat pump changed the price it originally quoted her. Mrs O passed this information to BEIS and appealed for an increased value voucher.
7. Over the next couple of months it appears BEIS made duplicate requests for further information from Mrs O and gave contradictory information about the appeal. It rejected her appeal on 12 September, by which time the original voucher had expired.
8. Mrs O complained to BEIS about this, and it found it had not processed her appeal correctly. It found that Mrs O had repeatedly provided the relevant information but it had not noted this. Had it done so, it seems Mrs O would have been issued with the increased value voucher.
9. To put this right, BEIS issued Mrs O with a new £10,000 voucher on 23 December 2021 which expired on 23 March 2022.
10. Mrs O then contacted a new supplier to organise the fitting of the heat pump. The supplier advised of worldwide supply issues, and explained it would contact her once it could give clearer timescales as to when the work could be done. On 21 March the supplier contacted Mrs O and BEIS to advise that the equipment could be on site by 25 March and installation completed by 1 April.
11. Mrs O then tried to contact BEIS to ask it to extend the 23 March expiry date of her voucher to accommodate this. She was unable to reach anyone at BEIS to discuss this fully. Shortly after this, she received an email advising that the expiry date had passed and so the voucher could no longer be used as payment for the supplier.
12. Mrs O complained to BEIS, arguing that it should have extended the voucher expiry date in part to reflect the poor service she had received in 2021. BEIS investigated her complaint, and on 1 April 2022 it gave its final decision. It noted it had given poor service in 2021.
13. However, it also explained that she had been given the full 90 day validity period available for the voucher. It accepted there had been delays at the supplier’s end, but explained it could not extend the validity period because of this. It also explained the scheme had now closed so there was no opportunity to extend the voucher any further.
16. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation 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.
17. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person affected. If we think it did, we go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.
18. Having done this, we consider BEIS has already done enough to put right the things that went wrong, and its refusal to extend the voucher was in line with the terms and conditions of the scheme.
19. Our Principles of Good Administration state that, when making decisions, public bodies should follow their own policy and procedural guidance.
20. The relevant policy here is the terms and conditions of the Green Homes Grant scheme. It says, ‘It is your responsibility to check that the terms of your contract with your installer require [it] to complete the installation … in sufficient time prior to the expiry date of the Voucher to enable the Voucher to be redeemed by the expiry date … and if you fail to do so the Scheme Administrator shall not be liable to you for any costs or losses you incur as a result’.
21. It also adds, ‘The Scheme Administrator [BEIS] shall not be in breach of these Customer Terms and Conditions nor liable for delay in performing, or failure to perform, any of its obligations under them if such delay or failure results from events, circumstances or causes beyond its reasonable control’.
22. We recognise how frustrating it was for Mrs O to have her voucher expire about a week before the supplier was able to install the heat pump. We also recognise how this frustration was made worse by the poor service she had when trying to process her previous voucher.
23. However, it is clear from the scheme’s terms and conditions that it was Mrs O’s responsibility to choose a supplier that could complete the work before the 23 March expiry date.
24. These were the terms she agreed to when she applied, and they clearly state that BEIS will not be liable for any losses as a result of a supplier not completing the work before the deadline. We recognise Mrs O disagrees and says it is not her fault the supplier was delayed. However, it is not BEIS’s responsibility and there is nothing in the agreed terms and conditions to say BEIS should extend the voucher to accommodate this.
25. We recognise Mrs O feels BEIS should extend the voucher despite the terms and conditions to compensate the poor service she had in 2021.
26. Our Principles for Remedy state that, ‘where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they would have been in otherwise’.
27. Mrs O was unable to use her first voucher in 2021 largely due to errors made by BEIS. However, BEIS issued her a new voucher in December 2021 to put this right. This put her back into the position she would have been in had BEIS processed her information correctly from March toJune 2021.
28. This is in line with our Principles for Remedy and seems enough to put the impact of the poor service right. We cannot reasonably say that BEIS acted poorly for declining to extend the voucher.
29. For this reason, we are not critical of BEIS and will take no further action. Again, we recognise how unfortunate it was that Mrs O was unable to use her voucher. It seems that this was the result of supply issues, and not because of what BEIS did wrong in 2021.
1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). We recognise Mrs O feels very strongly that BEIS should have extended the validity of her voucher to reflect poor service it gave her in 2021. However, we consider BEIS had already put right this poor service, and its refusal to extend the voucher was in line with relevant policy. Therefore, we have decided not to consider these matters any further.