Officials knew RHI claimant list was flawed
THE Stormont department responsible for issuing the list of businesses claiming from the botched Renewable Heating Incentive (RHI) scheme has admitted knowing of major errors in the list for two weeks before issuing a correction and an apology.
The Department for the Economy issued an extensive list of those businesses claiming from the scheme on March 16. A number of errors were later found. One company was said to have nine boilers when it only had four. Another was said to have claimed £63,000 when it only received £228, while a third was said to have secured £228,000 when it actually got £20,000.
Businesses had to use solicitors to force the department to make the changes to the list, and on Friday it apologised to one company for its error.
The Renewable Heat Association of Northern Ireland, which represents some RHI boiler owners, said the mistakes were of “major cause for concern” and risked “causing harm and distress to the companies and individuals involved”.
The Belfast Telegraph asked why, when the department knew of the error on March 16, the correction was not published sooner. A spokeswoman said staff had worked quickly to identify errors, but also suggested there could be more to follow.
“The department became aware of the error on the March 16 and immediately contacted the company to clarify their details,” the spokeswoman added. “The department has been working to ensure a satisfactory remedy for the company and to publish an errata list which encompasses any changes required.
“The list, by its nature, will change over time. The department plans to update it on a regular basis.”
Speaking on the BBC’s Nolan Show, Alliance leader Naomi Long said the “cock-up” provided more evidence there was no hidden conspiracy behind RHI scheme because “the department was not capable of a conspiracy”. “This is very concerning and asks serious questions of the record keeping in the department,” she added.
“This was a very sensitive scheme and they would have known that the details would have been pored over by the Press and the public.
“It shows a complete lack of sensitivity in publishing the list, basic checks appear not to have been done and it does not look good for levels of accuracy in the department.”