Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

3. Mr T complains about the service he received from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). He complains that:

• Ofgem wrongly revoked his Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) voucher, claiming that his property is part of an excluded development.

4. Mr T told us that because of Ofgem’s actions, he has have lost out on £7,500, which he believes rightfully should have been provided under the BUS scheme.

5. He explained this has caused significant stress and frustration. The process has consumed considerable time and effort, and the uncertainty has affected his family’s budget during a major self-build project.

6. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr T would like to see us recommend that Ofgem reassess his application, carrying out the correct legal test outlined in the regulations.

7. He wants Ofgem to provide a clear explanation of how they apply this test, and to reinstate his BUS voucher or make an equivalent payment if eligibility is confirmed.

8. Mr T applied to join Ofgem’s Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS).

9. Ofgem withdrew his voucher and informed him that it believed the property was excluded under the relevant regulations. Mr T disagrees with Ofgem’s interpretation of those regulations.

10. He explained that Ofgem’s decision relies solely on the fact that the original planning permission covered two dwellings and that construction occurred concurrently.

11. However, he points out that the regulation requires that the property be “wholly or mainly built to the plans or specifications offered by the seller.” He explained that Ofgem did not apply this test or consider evidence he provided to show that the house was built to his own commissioned plans and specifications, which he fully funded. He maintains that this, and other evidence he provided to Ofgem, demonstrates the property was not “wholly or mainly built” to the seller’s plans or specifications.

Rejected Voucher

14. Mr T complains that Ofgem wrongly revoked his Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) voucher. He explained that Ofgem took the position that his property is part of an excluded development, but that this is not the case.

15. Ofgem provided Mr T with its final review response on 22 August 2025.

16. It explained that on 10 January 2025, a site audit of the property was carried out. Ofgem says it found that planning permission for the construction of the property had been granted to the previous owners of the land, rather than Mr T.

17. Ofgem said the planning permission was also for multiple buildings. Based on this, it revoked the voucher on 18 June 2025.

18. Ofgem’s review says it was “satisfied that the property was part of a development of multiple buildings constructed on a plot, acquired from a person who offered the plans or specifications to which the buildings were wholly or mainly built”.

19. Ofgem says this made it ineligible and cited regulation 7(1)(c) of the UK Government legislation ‘The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022’.

20. Ofgem notes that in his review request, Mr T told Ofgem that the property was a single dwelling, owned by him and built on a single plot of land. He maintained they sole owners and built the home using their own resources and provided evidence to show this.

21. Ofgem notes that Mr T was stating that the property was not part of a development. Ofgem explained that it understood his position, because it was purchased and constructed separately. However, it explained the property was planned and constructed alongside another building.

22. Ofgem therefore considers it to be part of a wider property development and is satisfied that the wider development meets its definition of an excluded property development.

23. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mr T to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants.

24. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

25. This is not a matter for PHSO to decide on. Our role is not to determine whether the legislation has been interpreted correctly by Ofgem, as that is a matter for a court to decide.

26. Our role in such cases could only be to consider whether Ofgem has explained its interpretation reasonably, and it appears to have done so.

27. If Mr T wants to challenge that interpretation, he would need to seek independent legal advice. We asked Mr T if he was aware of any barriers that prevent him from taking such action, and he was not.

28. As a result, we must end our consideration of the matter here.

1. We have carefully considered Mr T’s complaint about the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). We would like to thank Mr T for bringing this matter to our attention and recognise the stress and frustration these events have caused.

2. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, we consider Mr T could take legal action on the matter that he has brought to us. As a result, we will not proceed with an investigation of this case.