Memorandum submitted by Age Concern Cheshire
(FP 52)
I am writing to you—and copying the same
information to a number of additional recipients listed below—in
response to a cluster of concerns recently brought to us by clients.
The Information and Advice Service provided by Age Concern East
Cheshire aims to assist clients with problems they might be experiencing.
On their behalf, Age Concern East Cheshire is making representations
to Warm Front, to Age Concern England, and to Members of Parliament.
You will be as aware as anyone of the considerable
public outcry, following a period of exceptionally cold weather
in January, about apparent failures in heating systems and the
delays and difficulties in remedying those failures. There has
been media coverage in the past week of the matter. A significant
number of those expressing concern are Warm Front clients.
The examples I give are collected in the main
over the month of January by our service; the one exception is
a client who "complained" last year following a Warm
Front installation of her boiler.
EXAMPLE ONE
I will start with that Client from 2009. As
I have not been able to contact her today I cannot name her, but
can say that she is elderly and lives alone; she is on Pension
Credit; she is not confident about technical matters, but was
delighted to hear that she might get a new boiler via Warm Front,
hoping that this would cut her fuel bills and keep her house warmer.
It quickly became apparent that she did not
like the new boiler She fiddled with the controls, believing it
was running all the time and thus using fuel; she would turn it
off; she came in to ask us to arrange for another visit to her
to explain the controls to her; she asked if she could have her
hot water tank back. We tried to persuade her to leave the boiler
alone and to monitor fuel use in the Colder months—but I
have not been able to speak to her to hear more.
I deduce from that example that there will many
older clients who will be equally puzzled, and wonder if the lesson
here is to provide better, simpler explanations of how a combi
boiler works, how it does (or does not) help with reducing fuel
usage, and how it is best controlled. That is, some simple instructions
or guidelines to reassure clients. Also, I read that combi boilers
can be fitted with a small-hot water tank for clients who prefer
the old system that they have been used to.
EXAMPLE TWO
This complaint is of a different nature. Originally
a client contacted us as he was having great difficulty in getting
a heating engineer who had expertise in attending to oil fired
systems in a park home, to repair a Warm Front installed boiler.
The engineer who did attend also—coincidentally—contacted
us as he had made visits to this client and was appalled at the
standard of workmanship he found. His report to us takes the form
of a letter he has written, in which he complains to the original
installation or maintenance company about the quality of the work
they had supposedly done. His question to us was in part how to
complain for his clients about poor or unsafe work done by another
company, and about the difficulties he had had getting responses
from Warm Front.
As a separate point, and from his experience,
he comments on the room thermometers and programmers being installed
by Warm Front contractors. Which he has found troublesome for
clients to the point that they turn off their boilers for example
at night time, as they cannot cope with the controls.
Although the engineer would give permission
for his report to be used, the client is not in agreement for
me to copy this to you. The client is pleased to have his heating
restored. and to have found a local company to help him, but does
not want to make a fuss. he says. He is having to pay himself
for the follow-up maintenance. However, he did tell me that "four
lads" fitted the boiler two years ago. thanks to the WF grant,
but there was no follow-up at or after 12 months.
EXAMPLE THREE
Mr X phoned us about his Aunt of 93, who had
a Warm Front installed boiler put in about five or so years ago.
Not only has this repeatedly caused problems, but maintenance
contracts have not been honoured and the clients have incurred
considerable additional charges in getting a local heating engineer
to attend frequently. The boiler is now functioning only partially
and Mr X was advised by us to ask Social Services for some warm
alternative accommodation for his Aunt when the worst weather
was being experienced. Both are costs which should not have to
be incurred by someone of the Aunt's age and means. Mr X was particularly
concerned at the comment from his plumber that the original boiler
was of poor quality and had been badly installed. Notes attached.
Mr X has not disclosed his Aunt's name, but
was very frustrated and aggrieved at his Failure to get in touch
with Warm Front or obtain any assistance with what appears to
him to be an irresolvable problem. There is no way the Aunt could
afford an alternative boiler, which is now, he is advised, beyond
repair.
EXAMPLE FOUR
Ms Y is a younger client, but she says her case
flags up how easily older clients might be "fobbed off"
with inadequate information, poor systems and appliances, and
be left with the impression that, as recipients of grants, they
should be grateful for anything. In her instance, there have been
lengthy delays (in getting a revised survey and appropriate appliances
agreed), alongside the poor quality of information.
Notes from conversations with x are attached
with her permission.
EXAMPLE FIVE
Ms Y's letter re her parents' experience is
attached, with her permission. This details delays, poor quality
boiler and functioning, and—I understand—a very common
problem with a condensing system, of freezing or blocking pipework.
I read on-line that this "fault" is able to be remedied,
which makes one wonder why it is so common.
I refer now to the Warm Front booklet, What
to Expect from Warm Front.
This invites the public to provide feedback
to the organisation, and advises that feedback is valued and helps
to improve the service. It is for that reason that I write, as
I would hope that the Warm Front scheme could be as beneficial
as possible to everyone in the most effective way.
Your booklet says you offer the "highest
level of service" and use "fully qualified installers"
who have been checked for safety, reliability and their quality
of work. WF operates strict selection conditions for installers,
it says.
There are clearly stated timescales within which
work and assessments are made, and the promise of two years of
free aftercare such as a post-job check and annual servicing.
There are clear statements about instances where "top-up"
fees maybe charged, and the order in which things should happen.
It all sounds very promising.
It seems such a shame therefore that a significant
number of your customers feel let down, irritated and aggrieved,
and that members of professional organisations such as heating
engineers should be critical of work they are called out to remedy.
The public has experienced delays, is puzzled to be offered contractors
who operate from long-distances, does not appear to be receiving
reliable aftercare, and—in some instances reported to us—not
taking up the grants because the top-ups required are too high.
DEDUCTIONS
In summary, the points I pick up from the cluster
of clients mentioned above, and their experiences are:
— delays—not just in responding to
clients 9n the telephone, but also in doing surveys or re-surveys.
It is evident that WF was under considerable pressure and weather
conditions were exceptional in January, which should have indicated
that additional staff might have been needed to cope with calls
from the public. Perhaps the scheme needs additional funding?
— poor advice—which those clients
without the confidence to resist might take believing that it
must be correct if given by an "expert";
— poor attitude and pressure—that
is, making clients feel they should be grateful and, because of
the grant, obliged to take what is being offered, without options
or adequate information. This could be deemed to be taking advantage
of a client's age, vulnerability, or lack of technical understanding;
ie no offer of options or alternatives, eg a tank plus a new boiler;
— limited information —which might
suit those who want a simple solution and don't want or can't
cope with technical stuff, but which must be tailored to the client.
There will be those who want to know more, without being accused
of conducting an interrogation;
— quality—several comments about
poor quality and unreliable appliances or installations, some
made by qualified engineers who can presumably be trusted to know
what they are talking about; and
— maintenance—reported failures to
comply with requirements to attend regularly to service boilers,
and in making repairs of a good and reliable standard. Assured
annual visits seem to be very hit and miss, and follow up maintenance
hard to get, so that vulnerable clients are left without essential
heating and hot water for too long.
In essence, it would seem to me to be counter-productive
to install equipment that is difficult for clients to control,
that tends to have a reputation for unreliability or malfunctioning,
and becomes costly to service or maintain, when clients are forced
to turn to privately arranged visits from heating engineers. On
this final point, I would suggest that clients would be within
their rights to feel entitled to some recompense for costs incurred.
Certainly they have felt aggrieved enough to
approach Age Concern East Cheshire. I offer their experiences
in the hope that representation to Warm Front or directly through
Parliament might enable the Warm Front scheme to improve for the
future.
February 2010
| 
