Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

3. Mrs E complains about Ofgem’s decision to revoke her Domestic RHI (DRHI) accreditation in October 2023. She says this decision by Ofgem is incorrect as she believes it has misunderstood the facts and has failed to use reasonable discretion to continue her accreditation. She also says the auditors conduct was aggressive and intimidating.

4. Mrs E says due to Ofgem’s decision, she has had to forfeit the remainder of the DRHI payments which were due to her prior to the expiry of the tariff. She says this also resulted in the requirement for her to repay all the sums she received from the accreditation, amounting to £40,758.34. Mrs E says this has caused her immense worry.

5. By bringing the complaint to us, Mrs E would like Ofgem to reinstate the accreditation and pay her the remaining instalments of the DHRI accreditation. She would also like Ofgem to confirm she does not need to repay the £40,758.34.

6. In 2017, Mrs E and her late husband successfully applied to join Ofgem’s DRHI scheme. As part of the application, they provided a certificate which showed the relevant heating system had been installed in March 2017.

7. In August 2023 Ofgem conducted a site audit of Mrs E’s property. As part of this, it obtained various documents relating to the heating system including invoices for its installation and relevant commissioning reports and certificates which showed that it was capable of producing heat. These documents were dated between 16-28 February 2016.

8. On 16 October 2023, Ofgem wrote to Mrs E and explained that following the audit, it was revoking her accreditation for the scheme. It explained that under the scheme’s rule, no part of the heating system could be used before it had been formally commissioned. It further explained that also under the scheme’s rules, an application for accreditation needed to be made within 12 months of the system being commissioned.

9. Ofgem noted the documentation indicated contradictory commissioning dates (February 2016 and March 2017) but regardless of which was correct, she had not complied with the scheme’s rules. Ofgem explained that if it accepted the February 2016 date as correct, Mrs E’s application (which was made in March 2017) fell outside the 12-month window, something which was not allowed under the terms of the scheme. However, if it accepted the March 2017 certification as correct, this meant the system had been in use prior to the commissioning date which was also not allowed. All of this meant Mrs E had not been eligible for payment from the onset and Ofgem asked her to repay the money that had been paid to her incorrectly.

10. Mrs E asked for a review of the decision. She explained her late husband rather than her had made the original application. Although she accepted that parts of the system had been generating heat in February 2016, she believed this was covered by an exception in the regulations. She said an immersion heater had been in use for the purpose of heating hot water (and there had been a temporary large space heater in the hall) but this had been the sole means of heating. She said the main central heating system had not been used prior to the March 2017 commissioning date.

11. Mrs E said she did not necessarily accept the first commissioning date was mid to late February 2016 (although she conceded that she was unable to check the relevant technical information with those responsible). However even if this had been correct, the application had been submitted ‘only a few days past the 12-month period’ which she said, made Ofgem’s revocation decision ‘exceptionally harsh and oppressive’.

12. At around the same time, Mrs E also complained about the conduct of the auditors who had visited the property. She said the visit had taken longer than indicated which had impacted her ability carry out her own work. She said the auditors had behaved in an unprofessional manner and had made her feel uncomfortable.

13. Ofgem responded to Mrs E’s request to review its decision. It said as well as the information it had considered as part of the audit process, it had also considered a planning application process associated with the property which had included a proposal for the erection of an Air Source Heat Pump in the rear garden. Ofgem said this proposal which had been approved in January 2016, further supported its contention the heating system had been originally commissioned in February 2016, not March 2017.

14. Ofgem said it had also considered further information Mrs E had submitted as part of her review request. It said photographs she had submitted were not dated and an email from a gas supplier (dated October 2015) did not in itself confirm the heating system was not operational. Ofgem said following its review, it stood by its original decision and asked Mrs E to repay the money.

15. Ofgem also responded to the complaint about the auditor’s conduct. It said its initial letter advising of the visit had explained that visits can take longer than anticipated in some cases. That was because each property is different, and auditors have no way of knowing exactly how long a visit will take.

16. Ofgem said the audit had been conducted by a member of its audit team alongside an authorised contractor. It said it could respond only to concerns raised about its staff member and advised if Mrs E had concerns about the contractor, she would need to raise them directly with the contractor’s employer. Ofgem said it had spoken to its own auditor and was satisfied they had acted in a professional and appropriate manner.

19. To put this case and our decision in context, it may be helpful to provide some background to the DRHI scheme.

20. The Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (DRHI) is a government financial incentive to promote the use of renewable heat. The scheme, which closed to new entrants in March 2022, was open to all households on and off the gas grid, who installed a renewable heating system and met the eligibility criteria. People who joined and followed the scheme rules receive quarterly payments over seven years for clean, green, renewable heat their systems are estimated to produce.

21. At the time of these events, the scheme’s rules made clear that applications to join needed to be made within 12 months of the first commissioning date of the relevant heating system. That is the date on which any tests and procedures that amount to the usual industry practices for that type of system were completed. These tests will demonstrate that the heating system is operating correctly, generating heat, and that it complies with industry standards.

22. To remain on the scheme, participants are required to agree to several ongoing obligations. One of these is to allow Ofgem, or Ofgem’s representative, access to the property for audit purposes (that is, to ensure that the participant is continuing to meet the scheme’s eligibility criteria). If the participant is informed of a site visit, they must co-operate with the person assessing the property. This means permitting entry and allowing Ofgem to collect all information necessary to satisfy the purpose of the site visit.

Ofgem’s decision to revoke Mrs E’s accreditation

23. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

24. Ofgem says it has revoked Mrs E’s accreditation in accordance with regulation 59(2) of the DRHI scheme. It says this regulation allows it to revoke an accreditation where it is satisfied that an accredited domestic plant has been accredited, wholly or partly, because of information which is incorrect in a material particular with which it has been provided.

25. Although Ofgem initially indicated the revocation was for either of two reasons, it has since confirmed it revoked the accreditation because the DRHI application was submitted more than 12 months after the system began providing heat.

26. We should explain we do not have the authority to overturn Ofgem’s decision. All we can look for is indications of errors in the decision-making process. If we find errors, we may ask the organisation involved to look at the decision again, but we cannot guarantee that doing so will result in a different outcome.

27. We should further explain when we consider matters such as this, we do so in line with our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right, under which we expect organisations to take account of all relevant considerations and balance evidence appropriately.

28. In this case, Ofgem found independent documentary evidence that the heating system had been installed and was ready for use by 16 February 2016. This meant to meet the terms of the scheme, either Mrs E or her late husband, needed to have make their application by 16 March 2017. Unfortunately, the evidence shows the application was made later than this, albeit only by a few days.

29. We know Mrs E disputes this commissioning date and has provided Ofgem with evidence which she believes shows it is likely incorrect. However, we cannot say what weight, if any, Ofgem should have placed on this evidence. In this case, Ofgem considered the information Mrs E presented and decided it was not enough to establish she had complied with the rules of the scheme. We are satisfied that in doing so, Ofgem has acted in line with our principles, and for that reason, we cannot dispute its decision.

30. Under our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable, we also expect organisations to be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.

31. The evidence shows that in this case, Ofgem explained clearly with reference to relevant regulations, why it had revoked Mrs E’s accreditation. It also explained clearly how it had considered her challenge to that decision and explained clearly why it was maintaining its original position. We would not have expected Ofgem to have done more.

32. For that reason, we have decided to take no further action on this aspect of Mrs E’s complaint.

33. We have noted Mrs E’s contention that the second reason given for revocation, namely that the system had been in use prior to formal commissioning, did not apply for her. We have looked at the relevant regulations and although they make clear that in general, no part of the system should be used before commissioning, there is an exception in cases where the use is to operate immersion heaters (and other components) which solely generate heat for the purpose of heating domestic hot water, and/or supplementary electric heaters.

34. When we asked Ofgem about this it explained that because it revoked the accreditation due to the application being out of time, the question of whether the system had been used before commissioning did not apply.

35. Having considered the matter carefully, we are satisfied this was a reasonable conclusion. Regardless of whether the exception had applied to Mrs E (and assuming she had been able to evidence the system had only been used in the way she described) the application would still have been out of time (and thereby subject to revocation).

36. As part of our work, Mrs E shared with us some evidence which she says she was unable to submit to Ofgem at the time it was dealing with her complaint. We should make clear that when considering matters such as this one, we can look only at how an organisation acted in the face of the information available to it at the time. We cannot take a retrospective view on how an organisation may have acted if it had been presented with different, or additional information at a later date.

37. Mrs E has provided us with a letter to Glasgow City Council, showing a new building warrant application (as the old warrant had expired). This application letter is dated 16 May 2016. Further to this, Mrs E has provided another letter showing the new building warrant was granted on 11 October 2016. Mrs E has previously told us that during this time, there was no work being carried out in the property, therefore says the heat pumps were not generating any heat. She says as the property was empty and not being worked on, it was not possible to connect the heat pumps during this period.

38. Mrs E has also provided images of various rooms in the property dated between March-September 2016. These images show the property under construction during this period and shows radiators throughout the property which are not installed or connected to any pipes. She says this proves that during 2016, the heat pump could not have been generating heat, as the radiators were not connected.

39. Finally, Mrs E has provided us with an email dated 22 August 2017. This email is from an Ofgem RHI officer to Mr and Mrs E. Within this email, the Ofgem officer states: “I’ve reviewed your account and from what I currently have there are no major issues…”

40. From the evidence we have been provided, it would appear Mrs E may have given us information which Ofgem has not yet considered. Whilst we are happy to pass this information to Ofgem, we cannot say it will agree to consider it or if it does, that the situation will change. We have made Mrs E aware of this.

Issue of the auditors conduct during the home visit

41. Mrs E says the way in which the audit was conducted felt like a police investigation. She says the auditors told her she was “under investigation” and she was obliged to answer any questions they asked. Mrs E felt the auditors’ behaviour was intimidating and the impact this had on her affected the outcome of the whole situation.

42. We have no doubt that Mrs E was made to feel uncomfortable by the visit. However, because we were not present, and in the absence of any independent evidence, we cannot take a view on how the visit was conducted.

43. Having said this, we are pleased to see Ofgem recognised the distress and inconvenience Mrs E experienced, even if unintentional. It explained its position clearly and apologised if Mrs E had been made to feel uncomfortable, even if that had not been the auditor’s intention. We would not have expected Ofgem to have done more.

44. In summary, we have seen no indication of maladministration in Ofgem’s decision to revoke Mrs E’s participation in the DRHI scheme. Nor can we see indication of maladministration in its handling of her complaint about the auditor’s conduct when they visited her home.

45. We recognise this has been a difficult and distressing situation for Mrs E. We also recognise that Ofgem’s decision has left her with a financial debt which she would likely not have anticipated. We realise this is not the outcome she would have expected or hoped for when she approached our office, but we hope we have explained clearly the reasons for our decision.

46. We thank Mrs E for bringing her concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs E’s complaint about Ofgem. We are sorry to hear how much distress the whole situation has caused Mrs E. We have decided we have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

2. Having looked carefully at the evidence, we have not identified any failings in the circumstances which led to Mrs E approaching us. For that reason, although we recognise Mrs E’s frustrations, we have decided to take no further action on her complaint. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.