Notice

Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund: Wave 3 - application forms clarifications (updated 21 November 2024)

Updated 25 November 2024

Applies to England

For any queries related to the WH:SHF Wave 3 application process and forms, including the issues listed here, please contact [email protected].

Application forms clarifications

Question number(s)	Application Form(s)	Details	Solution for applicants
Declaration (procurement act)	All	Implementation of the Procurement Act 2023 has been delayed until 24 February 2025.	Responses to this declaration question (whether a ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or simply left blank) will not be taken into account when assessing applications. An amended superseding declaration will be shared with applicants at grant funding agreement stage.
Declaration (safety standards)	All	Typo: ‘…and any statutory requirements for Principal Designs to be appointed.’ The text should instead refer to ‘Principal Designers’.	Responses to this declaration question (whether a ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or simply left blank) will not be taken into account when assessing applications. An amended superseding declaration will be shared with applicants at grant funding agreement stage.
1.2	All	Clarification: Name of the lead applicant should be the name of the organisation, not an individual.	N/A
1.9	Challenge Fund (CF) consortium applicant, Strategic Partnership (SP) consortium applicant	Omission: List of consortium members doesn’t explicitly ask for consortium lead to be included, nor does it automatically pull this information from the earlier consortium lead question. Yet this table then pulls into subsequent Section 2 questions, risking the consortium lead being missed out.	The list of consortium members in 1.9 must include the consortium lead.
1.29 (CF) / 1.27 (SP)	All	Clarification: Signature question does not require an actual signature, only the indicated fields need to be completed.	N/A
2.4/2.5	All	Omission: The question guidance does not specify whether the figure should include homes which are already at EPC C+ and are included in the project for infill purposes; or for the installation of LCH.	The figure listed for this question should not include homes which are already at EPC C+.
2.6/2.7a) (CF) / 2.9a)/2.10a) (SP)	All	Error: ‘Issue Identified’ box incorrectly indicating that ‘total number of homes does not match’.	If applicants have entered the same number of homes in each part of this question, they should ignore the ‘Issue Identified’ message. It will not impact their application.
3.2	Strategic Partnership (SP) individual, SP consortium	Error: ‘Issue Identified’ box incorrectly indicating that ‘The homes treated, to EPC C, or energy savings do not match Strategic Fit questions 2.3, 2.5 or 2.7’.	If applicants have entered the same number of homes for this question as they have for the corresponding questions in Section 2, they should ignore the ‘Issue Identified’ message. It will not impact their application.
3.4/3.5 (CF) / 3.3/3.4 (SP)	All	Error: There are two scenarios in which the ‘Issue Identified’ box incorrectly indicates that ‘Co-funding contribution is less than 50%’. a) When applicants indicate homes will access the on gas grid low carbon heating incentive offer. Grant funding for these homes does not need to be matched with co-funding. b) When applicants want to request a grant funding amount that is less than the maximum available grant funding.	Both: In either of these scenarios, applicants should ignore this ‘Issue Identified’ message. It will not impact their application. But a short explanation for the level of co-funding stated in this question must then be provided in the subsequent ‘sources of proposed co-funding contribution’ question. b) only: The actual requested grant funding amount will need to be formally communicated to DESNZ at a later date, so it can be correctly listed in the GFA. DESNZ will provide more information on this process to relevant applicants at a later date.
3.8 (CF) / 3.7 (SP)	All	Omission: Lack of clarity as to whether the examples listed in the question guidance must be addressed.	Applicants are expected to reference at least two approaches from the list provided in the question guidance.
5.2	All	Omission: There is no direct reference to ‘quality’ in the question guidance.	Applicants are expected to include their plans for quality assurance in their answers.
5.4 (CF)	CF consortium applicant	Typo: 5.4 is incorrectly placed where it asks applicants to confirm Annex D has been uploaded. In should instead be listed for the question below (managing the delivery of the consortium), which currently has no question number.	N/A