Refusing the application for underfloor insulation
16. On 19 April 2021, the Administrator recorded that Mr O had made an application to add underfloor insulation (UFI) to an existing loft insulation (LI) application. At first, he was told he could not add an additional measure after the 31 March 2021 deadline set out in the scheme’s terms and conditions. Mr O tried to appeal that. After some correspondence with the Administrator, we can see that Mr O asked to exchange the LI application for the UFI one.
17. The scheme’s ‘Customer terms and conditions’ say:
‘19. At any time after you have made your application for a Voucher, the Scheme Administrator or BEIS may audit the information you have provided, or request further information from you, where the Scheme Administrator or BEIS (as applicable) reasonably considers this to be necessary in order to check that relevant requirements under the Scheme are being complied with. You must cooperate with any audit of this kind, and provide any further information requested, within any timeframe reasonably specified by the Scheme Administrator or BEIS.’
18. Part of the auditing process involved referring to the Price Guidance Tool, which was based on industry pricing information (where such information was available), data from other government schemes and data from the other scheme applications. The Administrator then checked the expected quote value and compared it to the applications. Where the quote in the application was more than that value, the Administrator would typically ask the applicant to provide more information so it could decide if the additional cost was justified.
19. The scheme’s terms and conditions advise:
‘17. On receiving an application from you for a Voucher, the Scheme Administrator will carry out certain checks and then make a decision, using its own discretion, on whether or not a Voucher will be issued to you and (if one is to be issued) for what amount of Grant. If the Scheme Administrator decides not to issue with you with the Voucher you applied for, you will be able to appeal that decision by following the appeals process set out by the Scheme Administrator.’
20. Where quotes exceeded the pricing guidelines, a CCF was required to justify the quote. This is a document that gave the applicant the opportunity to provide more information and explain why the quote was higher than the guideline cost.
21. According to the BEIS records, on 8 June, Mr O was asked to complete a CCF to evidence why his quote exceeded the pricing guidelines for the scheme. Mr O completed and returned the CCF on 18 June and it was audited. On 21 June, the Administrator advised it could not approve the application because the CCF did not include any information to justify why the measures Mr O applied for were above the typical costs.
22. Though it was not shared with him at the time, we can see from the evidence we have that Mr O’s quote was calculated to be 64.51% above the average cost per square meter for the measure he had applied for.
23. Mr O appealed this decision and was given another opportunity to provide the required information on 29 July. He called the Administrator on 10 August to check which application this CCF was for and he was told it was for the UFI. The voucher that had been issued before for the original LI application was cancelled that day. Mr O submitted the new CCF on 13 August. On examination, the Administrator said no additional information to justify the higher cost had been given.
24. As Mr O had not provided any more information to justify the higher cost, the Administrator was unable to overturn the earlier decision to decline his application and his case was closed on 7 September. Mr O contacted the Administrator the same day to ask if he could appeal this decision and was told he could not.
25. On 10 September, Mr O emailed to ask if the Administrator could explain why his application had been declined due to the price when, according to his installer, around 180 other similar quotes they had provided had been accepted. The Administrator replied and explained there was not enough explanation for the cost and they could not discuss the other quotes the installer had provided because of data protection regulations.
26. We understand from Mr O that the structure under the floor in his home required a non-standard method to carry out the installation. We cannot give any view as to why the applications from other property owners were accepted when his was not. But we have looked at whether the Administrator acted in line with guidelines and standards in the handling of Mr O’s case.
27. What we do know is that when Mr O’s first application was rejected, he was given further opportunities to provide more information to explain why the costs were higher than ‘typical’.
28. The CCF form also includes this statement from Mr O:
‘I have been informed my quote is higher than a typical installation of this type of measure. I understand that the best way to ensure value for money is to seek several quotes from different installers […]’
29. We recognise that Mr O had a good relationship with his installer and did not want to contact other businesses for quotes. We must also recognise that Mr O did not give the Administrator any evidence that he had got a quote from any other installers, and it is possible that a different installer may have given him a more favourable quote that may have resulted in a successful application.
30. We can see that the Administrator gave Mr O two opportunities to give evidence to support the cost in his case being higher than average. In doing so, we think it acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, which say ‘Public bodies should treat people with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs, and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case.’
31. With the above in mind, we can see that the Administrator acted in line with the scheme’s terms and conditions in its handling of Mr O’s application. It has also acted in line with our Principles and its own complaints process.
32. Mr O tells us the Administrator should have told him how much higher his quote was. We have thought about this carefully. We have not seen anything to suggest the Administrator should have shared this information, and we do not think this would have made a difference to Mr O. This is because the problem was that he was not able to give evidence to justify his quote. Sharing that information would not have allowed him to either provide the needed evidence or a lower quote.
33. We have not found any failing in the way BEIS and the Administrator handled Mr O’s application.
Time taken for the Administrator to reach a decision on his application
34. Mr O complains about the time taken to give him a decision. We considered the events from when he asked to add a new measure to his existing application, to when he got the confirmation that his application had been declined and could not be appealed any further. This was between 19 April and 7 September 2021.
35. At first, the addition of the new measure was declined as it was after the cut-off date of 31 March 2020. Mr O asked for the decision to be reconsidered on 21 April 2021 and he was also advised to fill out a customer escalation form to be dealt with by the Administrator’s complaints department.
36. He contacted the Administrator on 29 April for an update and was told the only claim on file was the one for LI. This was accurate, as at that point his request to add UFI had been declined, so only the application for LI was open. On 4 May, he emailed documents to the Administrator in support of his UFI application and on 4 June he called to confirm that he wanted to cancel the LI application and swap it for the UFI. The cancellation request was sent for processing by the relevant team.
37. At this point, there does not seem to be any activity on Mr O’s UFI request, other than the documents being loaded on to the system, until 21 July when he called again and the matter was escalated. An appeal was opened on 29 July to consider adding the UFI.
38. We have referred to the scheme terms and conditions. Those standards say an appeal will have a decision within 20 working days, or a response will be provided explaining why it is taking longer. In this case, the Administrator took 40 days to respond.
39. We have considered whether there is a good reason why the Administrator did not meet the standard in this case. We have taken into account evidence we got from the National Audit Office report that says:
‘In March 2021, however, the final month of the Scheme, there was a rush of applications with 43,729 voucher applications, the highest of any month. Almost half of these applications were submitted after the announcement of Scheme closure on 27 March 2021 and before the Scheme closed on 31 March 2021.’
40. In our view, and because the Administrator was dealing with a very large number of applications submitted within a short period, this timeframe does not suggest any significant or avoidable delay. We do not think this was a service failing.
41. On 4 June, Mr O called to ask for an update. He was told there was no evidence that he had made an appeal about adding the measure and it was not an appealable matter. Mr O had to end the call but called again the same day and asked if he could cancel the existing application for LI and change it to UFI. This request was submitted to the voucher team, according to the records, and Mr O’s UFI application was considered. He was sent a CCF to complete on 8 June and he returned this on 18 June.
42. Mr O’s application was rejected on 21 June. He appealed this decision and was given another opportunity on 29 July to submit a further CCF. The appeal process sets out that it can take up to 20 working days for a decision to be given. In this case, we can see that it took 28 working days. While this is slightly outside of the standard, we do not consider this is so far outside of the standard to be a failing.
43. Mr O submitted the new CCF on 13 August and received the decision on 7 September that his application had been rejected.
44. Overall, from when Mr O first requested a change to his application to the rejection it took 20 weeks to process. This included time for the Administrator to make the decision that Mr O would be allowed to swap the measures, despite this technically being outside the guidance at the time. That was customer-focused and to Mr O’s advantage. It also included time for him to have an appeal heard and submit a new CCF.
45. Having considered the work the Administrator was doing on Mr O’s applications at this time, we see nothing to suggest the time taken was inappropriate. We see no evidence of failings in the time taken to process his application.
46. Having considered the evidence available to us and the relevant guidelines and standards, we do not uphold this complaint for the reasons set out above. We know Mr O continues to feel very upset about these matters, so we hope the information provided is clear and explains how we reached our decision and the steps we took.