The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s applications for solar panels and external wall insulation under its Green Homes Grant scheme. There is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his applications for solar panels and external wall insulation under its Green Homes Grant scheme. Mr X says he has not been given a clear explanation as to why his applications were rejected, yet his neighbour’s have been accepted.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We can investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence, and a further explanation of why Mr X’s applications were refused compared to other properties.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the alleged fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. In that regard, we will consider what the outcome is likely to have been if the alleged fault had not happened.
I understand there were some delays in 2022 in progressing Mr X’s applications, and the Council has accepted the reasons given for its decisions could have been clearer. But I am satisfied Mr X’s applications are still likely to have been refused even if these faults had not occurred. In reaching this view I am mindful of the Council’s explanations to the Ombudsman that: the retrofit assessors may initially recommend a wide variety of measures based on what might be suitable to help reduce the energy consumption of a property. But it is then the job of further technical surveyors to examine the practical feasibility of the measure being installed to the home, and so it is often the case that what was originally considered to be a suitable measure turns out to be unfeasible.
the other properties in the area that received external wall insulation under the scheme were a mixture of 1930’s semi-detached and post-war properties. The Council was unable to provide insulation to any Victorian, mid-terrace properties like Mr X’s under the scheme’s criteria, due to the planning requirement for verge trims to be retained. The Council also had concerns that the width of Mr X’s access alleyway would be significantly reduced by installing the insulation, contrary to building control requirements.
the solar panel installer carried out a desktop assessment and determined the condition of the roof looked unsuitable to accommodate the weight of solar panels. The chimney also appeared to cast larger shadows than the neighbours due to it appearing to be slightly taller. The panels need to be positioned in a place where shadows would not fall on them, and the chimney left only a small area of the roof space as suitable; this would not have accommodated enough panels to satisfy the grant conditions.
the Council is entitled to rely on the professional judgement of the technical surveyors, even if Mr X disagrees with their view.
As the outcome is likely to have been the same, on balance, I am not persuaded that any injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s actions is significant enough to justify starting an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman