Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 7
7
These issues were further exacerbated by underperformance of the Scheme Administrator (ICF Consulting Services Ltd,...
Conclusion
These issues were further exacerbated by underperformance of the Scheme Administrator (ICF Consulting Services Ltd, a contractor appointed by the Department), creating delays in applications being processed and vouchers issued to homeowners, as well as in making payments to installers, leaving them without payment for completed work for significant periods of time.16 The Department argued that this was the primary reason for the scheme’s poor performance, and that it had seen a lot of demand at the start of the scheme before these customer service issues arose.17 It also stated that some of the application complexity arose from the failure of the Scheme Administrator to implement a digital voucher application system, meaning that customers had to be asked for documentation for checks instead of these being automated.18
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
3.2 The department recognises the impact that the shortened timescale had on officials’ ability to meaningfully engage with consumers and installers, and that the scheme administrator’s digital delivery complicated these processes. 3.3 The pace of the GHGv scheme delivery led to some policy design decisions that added complexity to the user experience. However, key elements of the scheme design were informed by important learnings from previous schemes, including the prioritisation of robust quality assurance and customer protection.