Rejected Application
14. Mr O complains that his application for the BUS voucher scheme was unreasonably rejected. He believes that while Ofgem did come back to clarify the address given on the application form, it was correct and submitted in time, so should have been accepted.
15. Following a request for a review of the decision, Ofgem provided its final decision on 20 December 2024.
16. Ofgem reiterated its original position that because the address on the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) was different from the address given on the application form, it was necessary to seek clarification of this from the applicants.
17. 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.
18. The application was made on 7 May 2024. Ofgem had asked for clarification of this on 13 May 2024, and the complainants responded on 15 May to explain it was the same address. The application was approved and the voucher issued on 16 May. The complainants attempted to redeem it on 17 May, but this was rejected, because new rules came into force on 8 May 2024, and Ofgem doesn’t consider the application to have been properly made by that point.
19. We reviewed the documents that Ofgem referred to in its complaint response, and can see that the address on the application is in the following form: Property Name Number and Street County Post Code
20. The address on the EPC is in the following form:
Number and Street Town Post Code
21. We sympathise greatly with Mr O’s point here as the addresses given are clearly very similar. However, Ofgem did have a responsibility to ensure that that the application was valid. While not common, a premises at one property number can be divided into multiple dwellings (identified by a name), and we cannot find that Ofgem was wrong to seek clarification that the properties on the application form and the EPC were in fact the same address.
22. Ofgem’s position is that the application was not considered to be ‘properly made’ until the clarification was received.
23. As part of our investigation, we reviewed the UK Government Guidance ‘The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022’. Among other things, the regulations provide guidance on when an application is considered to be properly made. It defines ‘properly made’ as:
• “in the case of a grant application, means an application which provides the information required by regulation 14(3), and in relation to which any information specified in a notice issued in accordance with regulation 14(4) or (5) has been received by the Authority, • Regulation 14(5) Where the Authority considers that further information from the installer is necessary for the purpose of determining a grant application, it may by notice— (a) specify further information which the installer is required to provide within 14 days beginning with the date the notice is issued, and (b) inform the installer that failure to provide the requested information within that period may result in the grant application being rejected”
24. Ofgem’s guidance to property owners issued on 1 May 2024 also contained an explanation of when an application was considered as ‘properly made’. Paragraph 1.8 of the guidance said: ‘A voucher application is only considered ‘properly made’ when we have received all the information required to assess the eligibility of a voucher application, including property owner consent’.
25. Ofgem was acting within guidelines to request the clarification. It was also acting in line with its guidance when it told Mr O his application was not ‘properly made’ until it had received that clarification. It is extremely unfortunate that this pushed Mr O’s application passed the deadline when the new regulations came into place, but it was passed the deadline, and so Ofgem was correct to consider it under the new guidelines, not the ones that were in place when the application was originally submitted (Mr O’s point of complaint about the regulation changes will be considered separately later in this report).
26. With this in mind, we must find that Ofgem was correctly acting within the guidelines, and there is nothing to indicate maladministration or service failure.
Regulation Changes
27. Mr O complains that installers were not given sufficient notice of changes to the regulations to allow them to comply in time.
28. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there is an organisation that is better placed to deal with the concerns. Some complaints can be looked at by us, and also by other organisations. We have considered whether another organisation is better suited to giving an answer to the complaint and whether it can provide the outcome sought.
29. The decision to make changes to the regulations was made by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). DESNZ also set the regulations for the scheme.
30. As the independent administrator of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, Ofgem’s only responsibility in relation to it is to assess whether applications are in line with the Regulations.
31. As Ofgem is not responsible to the changes to the scheme, we cannot find that it was responsible for the claimed failings here. If Mr O wishes to pursue this, he should lodge a complaint with DESNZ.
Delayed Review
32. Mr O complains that the review into the decision took an unacceptable length of time.
33. As part of this investigation, we reviewed Ofgem’s policy document ‘Boiler Upgrade Scheme: Guidance for Installers’. Including in this document is a section covering an applicant’s right of review, should they disagree with a decision Ofgem has made in relation to the scheme. With regard to timeframes, the guidance states:
• “We aim to reach a decision within 21 working days of receiving an application for review. If it is not possible to do so in that time, we will provide an update within this time.
• We will notify the installer, and any other person affected by a decision, of the result within 21 days of concluding the review and making the decision.”
34. The request was lodged by email on 29 July 2024, and so a response would’ve been expected by 27 August 2024. The response was provided on 20 December 2024, almost three months later.
35. During our investigation, we contacted Ofgem to ask about the delay, and to see what updates and reasons (if any) were provided during the complaints process. Having done so, it would be helpful here to show a timeline of events:
• 30 July 2024: Ofgem’s Statutory Review Team (SRT) acknowledged by the Statutory Review team • 23 August 2024: SRT advise further time required to complete review, extended to 23 September 2025 • 23 September 2025 - SRT team acknowledge the photo sent by complainant and advise further consideration is required. Will contact again within 20 working days (24 October 2024) • 24 October 2024: SRT advise that further time is required to complete their review, extended to 15 November 2024 • 15 November 2024: SRT advise further time required to complete their review, extended to 13 December 2024 • 13 December 2024: The SRT manager advised she had taken over the review and that because of the time and amount of work needed to process the possible outcomes and their impact on other areas, it may take longer than expected to provide a decision • 20 December 2024: Review response sent
36. Mr O was copied into each of the emails, with the exception of the one on 13 December 2024.
37. While most organisations do have a set timeframe by which they expect to provide a review or complaint response, we do recognise that there are times where this is not possible.
38. Under PHSO’s own guidance ‘Principles of Good Complaint Handling’, we explain that what we do expected to see, where deadlines cannot be met, is that the complainant is kept updated, and new estimated deadlines provided.
39. We can see that this did happen, and that while the review request did take longer than expected, we would not consider a response in under three months to be an excessive delay. With that in mind, we will end consideration of this point here.
Summary
40. Having reviewed all the relevant evidence, we have taken the decision that there is nothing to indicate a need to proceed to the second and final stage of our complaints process.
41. We were sorry to learn of the circumstances which led to Mr O’s approach to our office. We realise that the outcome of his approach is unlikely to be the one he was hoping for. We also recognise his likely disappointment at this and hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision.