Posted by: @allyfish

↑

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.

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.

@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is designed to the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Code of Practice (designed by industry for industry as existing CoP's were out of date and not fit for purpose).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.   

@editor we are preparing an official response which we will out out in due course.

Posted by: @mark-n

↑

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). 

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.

Posted by: @mark-n

↑

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.

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:

Having carefully considered the range of views received, we are planning to proceed with the proposal to mandate MCS as the sole certification scheme for clean heat measures under the BUS, ECO4, Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund (WH:SHF) and Warm Homes: Local Grant (WH:LG), and remove the option for multiple certification schemes to certify installations. 

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!

Posted by: @mark-n

↑

One could say that a petition to Parliament to protest this decision could overturn that process so is one of several areas for consideration.   

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.