16. 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 short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see signs of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.
17. If we think the failings had an impact that has not been put right, we will usually investigate in more detail.
18. Having done this, we have seen no sign that anything went seriously wrong. Where things should have happened differently, we cannot link these to the impacts Ms E complains about.
Time to process changes
19. Ms E complains DBEIS did not process the changes to her Scheme vouchers quickly enough when she asked it to alter these vouchers on 24 August 2021.
20. To understand how organisations should behave we rely on relevant guidance available at the time. DBEIS had no guidance on how long it should take to make changes to Scheme vouchers. However, its Procedure sets out how DBEIS responds to enquiries and complaints.
21. The Procedure says DBEIS aims to acknowledge all enquiries and feedback within one working day and respond within five working days. However, in exceptional circumstances it might take longer. If this is the case, it should update the individual and explain how it is working to resolve the query. We do, however, recognise that changing a voucher is not the same as responding to an enquiry. We have therefore used it as an indicator of how long we can expect DBEIS to take rather than a prescriptive standard.
22. Our Principles say public bodies should behave helpfully and deal with queries within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits.
23. DBEIS has explained to us its procedures for making changes to vouchers. It would assess whether to agree to the change by re-validating relevant parts of the original application process for the voucher.
24. We have therefore considered whether the 19 days DBEIS took to act on Ms E’s request was too long. In doing so, we have taken into account DBEIS had a rush of work at this time because of the 31 August deadline. This, in combination with the work required to make the necessary checks, means it was understandable DBEIS took several weeks to make the changes Ms E asked for.
25. We have also asked DBEIS about what happened. It explained the deadline for changes to vouchers was 31 August. As Ms E only submitted her request four working days beforehand, this did not allow enough time for the scheme administrator to accept any further revised quotes or changes beyond her initial submission.
26. It seems the service DBEIS provided to Ms E could have been better. It did not proactively update her during the waiting period and sent confusing reminders during this time. However, we do not consider it took an excessive or unreasonable amount of time to act on the request she sent on 24 August. We have, therefore, decided not to consider this further.
Reasons for rejection
27. Ms E also complains DBEIS wrongly told her she applied to make changes after 31 August, and this was the reason it did not alter one of the vouchers.
28. Ms E tells us DBEIS’s decision means she missed out on financial support to install double glazing. She says without the vouchers she has experienced financial hardship and distress.
29. The Scheme T&Cs from the time set out how DBEIS and the administrator ran the Scheme, and also tell applicants what DBEIS expected of them.
30. Part 16 says: ‘You [the applicant] must ensure that all information you provide to the Scheme Administrator in connection with your application for a Voucher, and in response to any reasonable enquiries or other requests for information which the Scheme Administrator may ask you to respond to from time to time, is true, accurate and complete at the time it is provided.’
31. There are also strict rules in the T&Cs about what measures a voucher can cover. It says: ‘double/triple glazing (where replacing single glazed windows)’ and ‘external energy efficient doors (replacing single glazed or solid doors installed before 2002)’ are eligible. This means the vouchers do not cover replacing existing double glazing. The T&Cs also set out that ‘you will need to apply for a different Voucher to cover each of the different Eligible Measures’.
32. We have asked DBEIS to explain what happened when the administrator processed Ms E’s application. It tells us when the administrator received Ms E’s email dated 24 August, the bottom part of it had been cut off by the DBEIS’s system. This meant the administrator did not know she wanted to change the voucher for her windows, and explains why it only updated the voucher for her external wall insulation on 21 September.
33. When Ms E chased the progress of changes to her vouchers, she reiterated her request for DBEIS to change her windows voucher. However, this only happened after 31 August, and after the Scheme had stopped accepting alteration requests. This is why the administrator mistakenly believed her request to change the windows voucher was late.
34. During Ms E’s appeals process DBEIS told the administrator Ms E had in fact asked for the new windows voucher before 31 August and directed them to the relevant evidence. The administrator then made a notional decision on the change to her windows as requested.
35. On 18 February 2022, the administrator told DBEIS that ‘the quote for window includes the doors so this wouldn’t be accepted also looking at the property the bay window looks like it double glazed already, so there is really no further action needed here as far as we can see.’
36. DBEIS shared the notional decision with Ms E in its complaint response dated 4 March 2022. However, it did not accept its system had removed part of her original email or tell her this meant it had not reached a decision sooner. It would have been good customer service to do so.
37. We have seen the request Ms E made to change the windows voucher and the supporting quotes and photographs. DBEIS is correct that she asked to replace several double-glazed windows, and asked to include two separate measures in one voucher. The administrator therefore followed the T&Cs correctly when it decided these changes were not eligible.
38. While Ms E originally held a voucher to replace some of the glazing, this was when the separate measures were covered by separate vouchers. By combining the work into one, she was not entitled to a voucher for the work under the T&Cs.
39. We agree with Ms E that DBEIS made a mistake when it told her she had requested changes after the 31 August deadline. This was an error, and it took DBEIS until March 2022 to tell her the actual reason she was not entitled to a voucher. This was four months longer than it should have taken and was no doubt frustrating for her.
40. Ms E has told us DBEIS’s decision meant she unfairly missed out on financial help from the Scheme. As the application Ms E sent for glazing was ineligible, we cannot agree DBEIS’s delays or decisions were responsible for this. Unfortunately, it appears she was not eligible to have the windows replaced as they were already double-glazed. We recognise this has been a disappointing experience for Ms E and our decision is no reflection of the confusion and delays she experienced.