Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM)

3. Mr P complains about Ofgem’s decision to withdraw his eligibility under the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive scheme (DRHI is a government financial incentive to promote the use of renewable heat, which can help reduce carbon emissions).

4. He says Ofgem did not consider his issues or allow him to explain what happened with his heating system after the decommissioning (no longer in use) of system parts.

5. Mr P says he has lost funding because of the events he complains about. He wants reinstatement to the scheme.

6. Mr P applied to the DRHI scheme on 25 October 2021 and was accepted. On 22 September 2022 he told Ofgem on a replacement product declaration form (RPDF) that the original commissioned unit had not been giving correct output due to a compressor issue and the manufacturer had agreed to replace the unit. He said the unit had stopped providing heat on 15 September 2021 and a new air sourced heat pump had been commissioned on 12 September 2022. The form was signed by him and his installer.

7. Ofgem records show it sent three information requests to Mr P between October and November 2022 requesting further details about the information on the RPDF. In a final email reminder dated 21 December it said a failure to provide the information may lead to the scheme being withdrawn.

8. Ofgem asked for confirmation of the dates given on the form, saying the dates suggested the plant was not working from before the time of the application until 12 September 2022. Mr P was also asked to clarify the date of decommission of the previous plant and date of commission of the new plant.

9. Mr P forwarded the email to his installers for completion, they responded to him and he sent the responses back to Ofgem on 23 December.

10. In their response, the installer said the unit was replaced on the date given. They said it was fully operational before and after that date but not operating fully because of a manufacturer problem. They said because of COVID-19 and needing the manufacturer to agree the works, there was a long time until the unit was fully recommissioned. They said there was not a time when the property was not heated by the heat pump, the unit was removed and replaced on 15 September 2021 and that it was working, but the work was fully completed and signed off on 12 September 2022.

11. After receipt of this information Ofgem withdrew Mr P’s eligibility under the DRHI. In a notice dated 3 March 2023 Ofgem said that under regulation 8 (1)(b), the plant was never eligible for the scheme. It said it acted in line with regulation 59 (1)(c), regulation 60 (1)(c) and under regulation 39 (g) it needed repayment of £895.93 by 31 March.

12. Mr P appealed the decision on 30 March. On the appeal form he was asked why Ofgem needed to review the decision. He said the manufacturer made a mistake on a form and the system was replaced in one day. He sent a further RPDF form signed by the installer but not signed by himself, giving an amended date and saying the system stopped giving heat on 15 September 2021 and a replacement pump was fitted the same day.

13. Ofgem refused the appeal saying the signed RPDF stated that the original commissioned renewable heat pump had been decommissioned on 15 September 2021 and a new pump commissioned on 12 Sept 2022. Ofgem said these dates were further confirmed in the email Mr P sent from his installers dated 23 December 2022. It said that as the original declarations were made before Mr P was aware of the outcome, it thought the information he originally gave most accurately explained the circumstances of his case.

14. Mr P complained to us and told us the original renewable system was installed on 5 October 2020 and in September 2021 the control system became inoperative, causing problems with heating the underfloor system and upper floor radiators. He said this was investigated on 15 September, new equipment was delivered on 17 September, and a renewable heat pump and package tank system was installed and commissioned on 22 September. Mr P said that further investigations by the manufacturers found design, equipment (control valves), control and zoning issues dealt with by original contractors. He said the total system was closed down on 12 September 2022, then fluid filled and recommissioned. He said Ofgem did not give him the opportunity to explain this during the appeal and he says his eligibility was removed as a result of not being able to fully explain what happened.

16. When looking at complaints about decision making, it is our role to make sure that organisations have followed the appropriate policies and regulations and considered the appropriate information before making the decision. It is not our role to retrace the steps of the decision makers and apply our own reasoning to any decisions they may have made. We have looked at whether Ofgem reasonably considered the decision to remove Mr P’s eligibility, rather than change it with our own decision.

17. It is clear that Ofgem took action to get confirmation about the dates Mr P’s system stopped functioning to its capacity before removing his eligibility to the scheme.

18. Mr P’s eligibility was removed under regulation eight of the scheme regulations, which says the system needed to be working to the relevant certified Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS is a standard for low-carbon energy) (or equivalent) standard.

19. According to the information Mr P gave in September and December 2022 when he said the original pump had been decommissioned in September 2021, Ofgem were correct in saying that the original plant with MCS certificate had already been decommissioned at the time he applied to the scheme on 25 October 2021. Based on this, the application should not have been accepted onto the scheme under regulation eight because the pump had been decommissioned and the plant was not working to the certified standard.

20. Regulation 59 allowed Ofgem to remove the accreditation due to it having been given wholly or partly as a result of the provision of information which was incorrect in a material particular. Regulation 60 allowed it to recover repayment of the specified amount, which in this case was the full amount it had already paid to Mr P (almost £900).

21. While Mr P appealed, provided a second RPDF giving different dates and told Ofgem there had been an error by his installer, we are not able to find anything wrong with Ofgem’s reasoning or its explanation for not accepting the amended dates.

22. This is because Ofgem looked at the information given in the appeal and explained why the earlier statements are most likely to be the most accurate information.

23. Our Principles of Good Administration say how we expect organisations to act. In both administration and complaint handling we expect organisations to be customer focused, open and accountable for its actions and decision making.

24. As Ofgem looked at the right information and explained its reasons for its decisions, it acted in line with our principles. We do not find that anything is wrong in either its decision to remove the accreditation or in its handling of the appeal.

25. Mr P was given space on the appeal form to say why Ofgem needed to review the decision and he gave a brief explanation. There was enough space to give more information if he wanted and Ofgem gave him the opportunity to give any supporting information.

26. For these reasons, we have decided not to take any further action on Mr P’s complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mr P’s complaint about the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). We will not take any further action on his complaint as there is nothing wrong with Ofgem’s decision.

2. We will explain the reasons why in more detail below. We hope the information in this statement reassures Mr P that we have considered all his information.