The UK’s heat pump industry has just been handed one of its most significant shake-ups in years. Flexi-Orb, the alternative certification scheme developed by Certi-fi Schemes Ltd, has officially had its Heat Pump Scheme recognised as fit for the purpose of accredited conformity assessment by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), putting it on an equal accreditation footing with the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) for heat pump installations.
For more than a decade, MCS has been the sole UKAS-accredited certification scheme recognised for government-backed renewable heating incentives. That monopoly is now over (at least in principle) with the arrival of a competitor that promises a fresh approach, greater installer support, and improved consumer outcomes.
A New Era of Choice
Flexi-Orb has been designed to address what many see as deep-rooted problems with the way heat pump certification has been handled under the existing system. For years, industry insiders and homeowners alike have voiced frustration over inconsistent quality, poor accountability, and a lack of meaningful performance benchmarks.
David Lindsay, Managing Director of Flexi-Orb, told Renewable Heating Hub: “We’re delighted to have secured UKAS Heat Pump Scheme recognition, which is the precursor to the formal UKAS ISO/IEC 17065:2012 assessment process, but this is just the start. Our mission has always been to put consumers first while making the compliance process fairer, clearer and more effective for installers. We’ve built Flexi-Orb with input from right across the industry, from manufacturers and installers to consumer advocates. This isn’t about lowering the bar; it’s about setting the bar in the right place and ensuring it’s achievable for those committed to quality. Now that we have UKAS recognition of the Heat Pump Scheme, we can move forward with the UKAS assessment process with real confidence.”
That industry collaboration has been key to shaping Flexi-Orb’s Heat Pump Code of Practice, which covers every stage from design and noise calculations to aftercare and performance monitoring.
Mark Nelson, Certification Director at Flexi-orb, who has been involved in the scheme’s development, believes the arrival of a second accredited scheme is vital for raising standards: “Certification shouldn’t be a tick-box exercise. It should be a living, breathing process that keeps installers sharp and protects consumers from poor workmanship. Flexi-Orb’s model brings real-world practicality into the standards, without losing sight of technical rigour. That combination is what the industry has been missing.”
Unlike the revised MCS process, which has stepped back from certain office-based assessments, Flexi-Orb insists on them. That means checks aren’t limited to what an inspector sees on-site, but also extend to the paperwork, permissions, and aftercare infrastructure behind each install.
The scheme also includes clear assessment checklists (something many installers have long called for) so everyone knows exactly what’s being measured and why.
Why This Matters to Homeowners
The introduction of Flexi-Orb as a UKAS-approved scheme could mean:
- Greater consumer choice: Homeowners will now be able to select installers certified under either scheme.
- Healthy competition: With two schemes in the market, both will need to continuously raise their game.
- Better accountability: Flexi-Orb’s feedback mechanisms and practical design focus could lead to fewer underperforming systems.
For a sector that has suffered from a stubbornly low average SCOP of around 2.7, when well-designed systems should regularly achieve 3.5+ – this could be the jolt the market needs.
Why This Is Big News
I’ve spent years hearing from UK homeowners on the Renewable Heating Hub forums, and I’ve lost count of the stories involving MCS-accredited installations that were poorly designed, badly executed and left consumers fighting through a bureaucratic maze to get anything fixed.
From systems that can’t heat a house in winter, to oversized buffer tanks destroying efficiency, to heat pumps short cycling themselves to death, these aren’t rare exceptions. They’re patterns. And the oversight structure has been failing to break those patterns.
That’s why Flexi-Orb’s UKAS approval is a huge deal. Not because it guarantees overnight change (it doesn’t) but because it finally breaks the monopoly that has allowed complacency to thrive.
However, there’s still a major hurdle: DESNZ.
Right now, the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) and other government-backed funding streams still require MCS certification for eligibility. That means even with UKAS approval, Flexi-Orb-certified installers can’t access the same grants unless DESNZ updates its rules.
If MCS is allowed to remain the sole gateway to taxpayer-funded heat pump installations, then we’re back to the same problem, a monopoly, just dressed in new clothes. And given that MCS themselves have publicly stated they want that monopoly, the competition risk here is obvious.
In any other sector, if a private body moved to lock out competition in this way, government watchdogs would step in immediately on anti-competition grounds. The fact it hasn’t happened yet in heat pumps is baffling.
What Needs to Happen Next
- DESNZ must recognise Flexi-Orb (and any other UKAS-accredited scheme) for public funding eligibility.
- Clear performance benchmarks must be introduced, for example, a baseline SCOP that every funded installation must meet.
- Accountability must be enforced, with transparent routes for homeowners to get poor work corrected without months of finger-pointing between schemes, certification bodies and consumer codes.
If that happens, UK homeowners could finally see a market where quality is rewarded, where grant funding goes only to competent work and where poor installers can’t hide behind paperwork.
The arrival of Flexi-Orb as a fully accredited alternative is the first step in that direction. Whether it turns into real, lasting change will depend on whether DESNZ (and the wider industry) have the courage to embrace competition and put outcomes ahead of gatekeeping.
I am keen to see how this unfolds and changes the landscape, I for one would welcome the opportunity to have an option to which accreditation we hold as we have to pay with a lot of time and money to hold these, if it shows having the higher grade that you are a company that consistently delivers design and installation quality then bring it on as it will help us advertise that we are a cut above and standards are high rather than prices are low or corners are cut.
I must say I like the MCS badge and what they do but none of our customers have ever had a reason to contact them so our experience is just the MCS portal which is very easy to navigate. Seeing some of the horror stories on here I also think a consumer code that proactively pursues for reparations will shake up the poorer side of the industry, less ASHP bashing and mythical lies about them not working and less bad experiences for all clients one hopes.
MCS have set a potential trap in the new version of MCS020(a). The copyright notice prohibits it’s use for commercial purposes other than by an MCS installer.
Now the document (or at any rate it’s contents) is effectively part of planning law, so I’m not sure how a suit for infringement of copyright would play out in court. Hopefully this will never be tested but I fear MCS might go to some length to protect their monopoly.
Now that flexi-orb are accredited they must have a very strong argument that denz must change, and if denz don’t then a strong basis for complaining about something close to misleading actions by denz.
As a potential heat pump customer, it would be good to have some alternative standards which consider the real-world cost and disruption resulting from the requirements, with more flexibility to come up with designs which provide a better balance between the heat pump system performance and the impact of the installation on the home itself.
Example is DHW cylinder sizing, where rigid sizing rules demand large cylinders, forcing them to be moved to inconvenient locations like garages, bedrooms, or other locations where they harm the usability of the space. There should be more flexibility for the home owner to decide if they would prefer a heat pump system which fits within the existing design of their home, accepting some compromises on system DHW capacity or performance.
As someone who has suffered from a Heat Pump installation backed by the MSC logo only on paper, without any help when things went wrong, I would love to see homeowners have other choices.
We all know how messy and inconsistent the renewable heating sector can be and how often homeowners are left picking up the pieces after poor installs or lack of proper oversight.
That’s why I wanted to share something important with you. Certi-fi have published an Open Letter to the Rt Hon Edward Miliband MP, raising urgent concerns about the future of fair competition in the renewable energy sector and calling for stronger independent oversight to protect both consumers and the industry itself.
This is exactly the kind of thing we talk about daily on these forums: transparency, accountability and making sure the industry actually works for homeowners, not just against them.
I’d encourage everyone here to read the letter and, if you agree with its message, add your name in support. The more voices behind this, the harder it is to ignore. You can read and sign here: Certi-fi Open Letter – Add Your Support
Let’s make sure homeowners’ experiences and concerns are represented where it matters.
@Mars Read & Signed Mars, for ‘company’ I have put ‘Homeowner’. Toodles.
@Toodles, for company you should gone with “The Toodles".
@Mars 😃
Signed
Yup, signed.
Signed.
Signed
It’s the perfect strategic partnership between government and its favourite certification charity. Somewhere in Whitehall, a cork just popped and Ian Rippin’s toasting to another decade of unaccountability.
I do hear this and am as angry as you, but perhaps we should try to understand the motivation and also unpack it if we are to move forward. There is no advantage to Government in having a poor scheme and this one has had the approvals of governments of different flavours so its not obviously party political. Its easy to blame ‘corruption’ but honestly I doubt it.
Its, at least in some respects, not unprecedented either. The IET, also an independent charity, has sole responsibility for the electrical regulations to which all electrical installations in this country must conform. For full disclosure I should state that I’m a member, albeit one with absolutely no role in running it. So far as I am aware it does a pretty excellent job. There are differences, whilst the IET is responsible for defining the regulations, there is no obligation to be a member of it to apply them, there are several other bodies of which electricians can be members which appear to have some overlap with bodies that provide a broadly similar role in the heat pump business (NAPIT for example).
I can see that there is an argument for one and only one set of standards in any particular area, to which all installations must conform. In fact the idea of competing standards is almost an oxymoron. These should IMHO, specify the what not the how, ie they should say what standards the installation must meet (and possibly how those may be demonstrated/tested) not how it should meet them. If we accept this (and I think I do) then making a body, whether it is MCS or another, solely responsible for standards is logical.
Setting standards is of course different from enforcing them, which is also different again from consumer protection. SOFAIK the IET has no role in enforcing the standards it sets, thats the role of the building inspector and/or the accreditation bodies such as NAPIT. Perhaps our expectations here are wrong?
The other thing to factor in is that standards are often minimum standards, setting a baseline above which the best may well rise. Competition is of course important here, but it’s not competition of standards it’s competition of providers.
I am not defending the Government decision, rather Im trying to understand both it and the parallels (or not) with other sectors. Why? because by doing so it might be possible to mount a more convincing argument when the promised review of consumer protection (which is the real issue that we are complaining about) in the sector takes place.
Maybe the people who run flexi-orb have a view, or even an analysis, to contribute?
Perhaps a way through is to encourage the public to ask for written performance guarantees. Heat geek, it seems, provide this (although I don’t know how it’s measured, does anyone else? Should they? Is this better than doing what we are currently doing which is to advise them to question the design details? I don’t know!
@JamesPa, I agree that understanding why this has happened is important, but the problem here isn’t the principle of having one set of standards; it’s who’s been entrusted to uphold them and how catastrophically they’ve failed to do so.
MCS isn’t the IET. The IET doesn’t regulate commercial access to funding or decide who can and can’t participate in an industry worth hundreds of millions in public money. That’s the key distinction for me.
At the end of the day, we’re seeing homeowners trapped in endless complaints and systems performing well below acceptable efficiency. When the sole certifying body has presided over years (over a decade now) of declining quality and systemic failure, the answer cannot possibly be to remove all competition and accountability.
A single standard, yes. A single enforcer with a monopoly on access to taxpayer funds, absolutely not. The IET example works because it separates the standard from the market mechanism. MCS now controls both. It essentially writes the rulebook, enforces it and collects the fees. That’s a conflict of interest on every level. I just don’t get it.
And as for government motivation, I think it’s more inertia than conspiracy… maybe I’m being too kind! It’s easier to hand everything to the existing body than to face the embarrassment of admitting the system has failed. But for homeowners, who are the ones paying the price, this decision entrenches the very dysfunction that’s driving people away from low-carbon heating in the first place.
I agree that the consumer protection review will be the next key moment. But unless competition (real, structural competition) is introduced, that review will be nothing more than another consultation designed to placate critics while the monopoly rolls on. I don’t have the MCS have the competence to sort this out. But let’s see what transpires.
@Mark Nelson, if Flexi-orb would like to respond and offer a view here on the forums, please feel free to do so.
@Mars
There’s a growing concern in the industry and among homeowners about the current approach to certifying heat pump installations. MCS is often seen as the gatekeeper for standards in the renewables sector. However, it’s important to recognise that MCS doesn’t set the underlying technical standards — it applies and enforces them through its own certification framework. It uses existing British and international standards, but it also controls access to funding and market participation, which places a huge amount of responsibility on a single organisation.
By contrast, the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Scheme has been designed by industry, for industry, through a Code of Practice developed collaboratively across the sector. It aims to raise competence requirements beyond current practice, ensuring high-quality installations with SCOP values above 3.5. Like MCS, Flexi-Orb follows recognised national and international BS EN standards, but it also adds an extra layer of assurance through industry-led governance and competence assessment.
This approach seeks to prevent the very issues we see with MCS: underperforming systems, inconsistent installation quality, and homeowners paying the price for systemic failures. Flexi-Orb isn’t just about standards — it’s about ensuring real-world performance and accountability.
The question now is: what actions should those affected the most — homeowners and taxpayers — take? Some potential steps include:
Demand transparency about who certifies installations and how competence is measured.
Ask for evidence of SCOP performance and long-term efficiency guarantees before installation.
Engage with consultations or industry forums to advocate for independent oversight and accountability.
Consider schemes like Flexi-Orb that have built-in industry governance and higher competence standards.
At the end of the day, a single standard is fine. A single enforcer with a monopoly over public funding is not. The homeowners paying the price deserve better.
@Mars we are preparing an official response which we will out out in due course.
I think I would agree with that analysis, in essence one body controls too much of the food chain. Perhaps we should develop this argument and unpack the elements. Other bodies do seem to have a role when it comes to heat pumps, but its currently obscure who is responsible for enforcement of the customer experience (is anybody). Perhaps one of our installers could explain the relationships between MCS and the various other bodies?
I think there may also be a somewhat separate question of competence. Recent evidence suggests that MCS may not be particularly competent even at writing standards. MCS020(a) when first issued had a fundamental arithmetic error (which was corrected following a comment from me, although I’m not taking credit it may be that others made a similar comment) and still is ambiguous as regards solid barriers, which is key to its whole purpose. Over the past 2 – 3 years I have made several comments to them regarding lack of precision, some of which have in fairness been taken on board and some of which are outstanding. There is no excuse for poorly drafted standards which should be rigorously reviewed before publication. I haven’t conducted a thorough analysis of 3005-I and 3005-d, so it maybe that the problem is limited to MCS020.
It would be really good to understand this better and in particular to hear from flexi-orb and from some better installers. We need to be prepared for the next stage.
@Mark Nelson, purely for transparency, are you the Mark Nelson who is part of Flexi-orb’s exec team?
Your response is welcome either way, but I just want to make it clear to everyone the perspective you’re responding from.
Oh, and given this is your first post, welcome to the forum.
@Majordennisbloodnok
Thanks for the welcome and yes I’m Mark Nelson 😊
OK so if that is the case (and presuming you are somehow linked to flexi-orb), is the Government potentially right to have one body define standards (or how to apply standards that already exist to a particular sector) provided it allows competition for codes of practice etc? This could be consistent with grant aided schemes requiring that the installation is to MCS standards provided that MCS standards themself don’t actually mandate the use of an MCS registered installer.
Its relevant to note that the most recent change to PD rules did exactly that. PD rules formerly specified that, to qualify, installations must be to ‘MCS Planning Standards or equivalent standards’ and ‘MCS Planning Standards’ were defined as a particular issue of MCS020. MCS020 specified a noise standard and also specified that, to conform the installation must be done by an MCS installer, thus effectively creating a closed shop for installations under PD.
In May 2025 the PD rules were amended to remove ‘or equivalent standards’, seemingly tightening the MCS grip. However in fact it loosened the MCS grip and removed the closed shop because the definition of ‘MCS Planning Standards’ in the legislation was changed from a particular issue of MCS020 to a particular issue of MCS020(a), and MCS020(a) contains only a noise standard and no requirement that the installation be done by an MCS registered installer.
Is it possible that the Government intent is to do the same for grants as it has done for the PD rules, thus retaining MCS as the sole definer of standards, but not as the sole arbiter of installation quality/installer suitability? If so then there may yet be logic in the direction of travel.
@JamesPa
Yes, I am linked to Flexi-Orb, so I can provide some context from experience in industry-led scheme development.
@JamesPa I would like to provide some clarity on how MCS and Flexi-Orb are actually structured. Both of them are accredited Scheme Owners, that is accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) the government appointed National Accreditation Body (each country that is signed up to the international multilateral agreement has one that is solely responsible for accreditation activities in its own country). To achieve accreditation a Scheme Owner must demonstrate that its scheme is designed to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17067:2013 and have accredited ISO/IEC 17065:2012 Certification Bodies to operate its scheme. MCS Version 1 (the one that is currently in operation) novated out of Government and as such was never accredited to ISO/IEC 17067:2013. MCS Version 2 does however meet ISO/IEC 17067:2013. Flexi-Orb was designed to ISO/IEC 17067:2013 from its inception and so in 2024 gained accreditation to be the only renewables scheme currently operating that meets that requirement.
The Scheme Owner in designing the scheme must demonstrate that it has been designed against National/International Standards or Normative Documents. As such Scheme Owners do not set standards but declare what standards the scheme will work to. In the case of Flexi-Orb it is the IET Codes of Practice for PV, battery and EV Charging. The Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Scheme is designed to the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Code of Practice (designed by industry for industry as existing CoP’s were out of date and not fit for purpose).
The Permitted Development Regulations are derived from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 which is itself a Statutory Instrument. MCS 020 is an MCS Document based on the requirements of the Technical Guidance for the the PDR. MCS documents and Flexi-Orb documents based on any standard have to ensure that the requirements of those standards are not misrepresented in any way and must be factually based on the core document(s).
Government Funded Schemes such as the BUS Grant are based on Statutory Instrument (Regulation) which in most case state MCS or equivalent (which Flexi-Orb as an UKAS accredited scheme is).
So to sum up neither MCS or Flexi-Orb write standards but they must ensure that their processes and procedures align with National/International Standards or Normative Documents and comply fully with the requirements of Statutory Instruments (Regulations) and current legislation requires that both schemes must be recognised to have access to Government Funded Schemes. Having MCS as a sole certification scheme will simply mean that no other scheme even those equivalent to MCS will have any access to public money, which means that the current situation will not change for the householder and they will control the narrative. A dark day for the future of the renewable objective to install 600,000 heat pumps a year and ammunition for Reform to argue that the renewables industry is not working and Net Zero is unachievable.
The outcome of the consultation is quite clear that the majority (69% +) of respondents were against this and the decision made by Government to monopolise MCS must now be laid before Parliament in order to change the legislation to allow their decision to become legal. One could say that a petition to Parliament to protest this decision could overturn that process so is one of several areas for consideration.
The Government DESNZ response to the Boiler Upgrade Scheme Certification Requirements consultation has been published.
The MCS will retain their monopoly position despite 3/4 of the consultation respondents disagreeing with question 5: the proposal to mandate MCS as the sole certification scheme.
Only 248 responses to this question – the pivotal one in the ‘consultation’ – evidently this consultation was not widely known about and/or was a sham with a pre-determined outcome from the start.
You are very probably right, but it’s still just possible there is a longer game here equivalent to what’s happened to PD rules as explained in my post above. At first sight it appeared that the may 2025 changes to pd rules strengthened the mcs monopoly on installs under pd, but they actually removed it.
I am hoping Flexi orb, who presumably have insider knowledge, will be able to comment.
Er that isn’t quite true or at least not what the legislation says.
The legislation specifically calls up conformance to mcs020a as a requirement for pd. It does not, as you seem to be suggesting, describe a requirement on which mcs020a is based. Thus mcs020a is, prima facie, a standard in its own right.
Now it may be that mcs020a is based it on another document, but that isn’t declared anywhere which I would have thought it would be.
Mcs 020a differs from mcs020 in several technical respects but also in that it doesn’t require the installation to be carried out by an mcs installer and thus this requirement has been erased from pd rules.
Ok so that seems to be the key point namely only mcs can certify installations. Here is an extract from the text of the government response which apparently confirms this is the intention:
Is there any residual possibility that this allows multiple organisations to certify, but all must use the same scheme? It seems unlikely I admit, but it is odd that the mcs monopoly was struck out of pd rules yet apparently is to be strengthened when it comes to certification. Of course different government departments are responsible!
Yes indeed. If it is to have any chance of success it needs to be precise not muddled otherwise the department will just respond by ‘correcting’ the misconception in the petition. Flexi orb can presumably help with the precision of interpretation of government intent as it presumably has at least some knowledge that the rest of us do not have.