Thanks for the contributions on the issue of IWA Insurance everyone. I think we are all agreed that this insurance company is not fit for purpose (personally I feel that we have been scammed by IWA).

However, my point remains that this is a systemic issue. The person that chooses the IBG is the installer who will not be affected if they turn out to be rogues. The person that stands to lose out financially by this inadequate insurance cover is the customer who has no say in the choice of the insurer. This disconnect enables insurance companies to act with impunity as there’s no consequences for them in terms of business loss due to poor reviews.

Agreed, @ian-w.

And, to do the point justice, that systemic failure extends way beyond the insurance. It often seems as if all the involved parties are united AGAINST the consumer. Every instance of a happy customer I've ever heard of has been the result of the chosen installer doing what they're supposed to. I have not yet heard of an instance of a customer successfully overcoming a botched install except either by their own efforts or with the help of communities like this forum.

Posted by: @ian-w

↑

Thanks for the contributions on the issue of IWA Insurance everyone. I think we are all agreed that this insurance company is not fit for purpose (personally I feel that we have been scammed by IWA).

However, my point remains that this is a systemic issue. The person that chooses the IBG is the installer who will not be affected if they turn out to be rogues. The person that stands t

Afo lose out financially by this inadequate insurance cover is the customer who has no say in the choice of the insurer. This disconnect enables insurance companies to act with impunity as there’s no consequences for them in terms of business loss due to poor reviews.

Completely agreed.  Unfortunately this sort of situation is not restricted to heat pumps.  As I say above, our consumer protection is better than some countries, but nothing like bombproof.  Caveat emptor!

I am going to say again that, as voters, we must bear some responsibility.  For 53 years out of 80 since the second workd war the government we have voted for has been overtly ideologically disposed towards low/no regulation.  MCS, the industry watchdog, is a product of that.  It was originally established by Government, but in 2018 it was spun off as a private organisation funded by the industry.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  That is no consolation for affected individuals, but we may all need to adjust our expectations given our collective voting habits, whilst of course continuing to campaign for better.

@ian-w. If there is any way we can assist with pointers to things you could do (or have done fairly cheaply) to improve your system I, and I'm sure others, am/are happy to try.

 

Posted by: @ian-w

↑

Thanks for the contributions on the issue of IWA Insurance everyone. I think we are all agreed that this insurance company is not fit for purpose (personally I feel that we have been scammed by IWA).

We just received an initial guestimate from EDF for a BUS heatpump install. It included an IWA leaflet... 
This is an extract of what it says for deposit protection:
At the time of paying a deposit you should be issued with a Deposit Protection certificate from IWA. This document will protect your deposit, prior to the commencement of the contract for up to 25% of the contract value, subject to the terms and conditions on the certificate
Also, for the IWA Guarantee Insurance:
Your contract will be insured for a period of up to ten years and is underwritten by FCA authorised Insurers,subject to the terms and conditions on the Certificate.
Then, under Warning: 
In the event of an insurance claim refer to the Certificate for the procedure. If you have not been issued with a policy you do not have insurance cover.
And EDF did not include the terms and conditions for neither the IWA Deposit protection nor the Guarantee when they send the IWA leaflet... 
 

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Also, for the IWA Guarantee Insurance:

Your contract will be insured for a period of up to ten years and is underwritten by FCA authorised Insurers,

And EDF did not include the terms and conditions for neither the IWA Deposit protection nor the Guarantee when they send the IWA leaflet... 

 

Interesting, my protection was only for 2 years and, as I post above, essentially worthless.

I didn't even get the terms of the insurance when I contracted, I only got them after completion.  Given the wording of the insurance itself (if yours is similar to mine) this is arguably mis-selling by the installer (who has probably never read the terms himself).

 

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Every instance of a happy customer I've ever heard of has been the result of the chosen installer doing what they're supposed to. I have not yet heard of an instance of a customer successfully overcoming a botched install except either by their own efforts or with the help of communities like this forum.

... perhaps the main reason why, when people come here with tales of woe, I fairly soon suggest self-help with the assistance of this forum.  Its the only proven way to get botched instals fixed once the installer has vanished, and certainly the only way likely to yield results within a heating season.

There is one exception I know of, @drei, who had the good sense/good fortune to pay in part on credit card, has succeeded (after a long battle) in getting money back under section 75 of the Consumer Credit act.  Thats no credit to the industry though.

 

@jamespa In a different but somewhat similar situation, I had bought kW’s in Ripple Energy’s Project 4 Wind Farm. Due to poor management,  and possibly worse, this project collapsed but as I had paid by credit card, I was able to claim full reimbursement from my bank under a section 75 claim. Regards, Toodles.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Also, for the IWA Guarantee Insurance: Your contract will be insured for a period of up to ten years and is underwritten by FCA authorised Insurers, And EDF did not include the terms and conditions for neither the IWA Deposit protection nor the Guarantee when they send the IWA leaflet...   

Interesting, my protection was only for 2 years and, as I post above, essentially worthless. I didn't even get the terms of the insurance when I contracted, I only got them after completion.  Given the wording of the insurance itself (if yours is similar to mine) this is arguably mis-selling by the installer (who has probably never read the terms himself).

We send the insurance as soon as someone pays the deposit, if they dont have deposit insurance as they didnt pay they get the work insurance after the installation. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

 ... perhaps the main reason why, when people come here with tales of woe, I fairly soon suggest self-help with the assistance of this forum.  Its the only proven way to get botched instals fixed once the installer has vanished, and certainly the only way likely to yield results within a heating season. There is one exception I know of, @drei, who had the good sense/good fortune to pay in part on credit card, has succeeded (after a long battle) in getting money back under section 75 of the Consumer Credit act.  Thats no credit to the industry though.

  I would advise everyone to pay for the booking deposit on a credit card, we actively encourage this, if you pay over £100 on Visa for example the whole job is insured by them or they will at least help you with compensation.

Posted by: @ian-w

↑

The installer’s consumer code was RECC.

RECC are abysmal. I was hoping it’d be HIES.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

I am going to say again that, as voters, we must bear some responsibility.  For 53 years out of 80 since the second workd war the government we have voted for has been overtly ideologically disposed towards low/no regulation.  MCS, the industry watchdog, is a product of that.  It was originally established by Government, but in 2018 it was spun off as a private organisation funded by the industry.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  That is no consolation for affected individuals, but we may all need to adjust our expectations given our collective voting habits, whilst of course continuing to campaign for better.

I'm not convinced that quite captures the problem because we do have a lot of regulation, we've got volumes of Building Regulations with reams of requirements and legal obligations to fulfil when doing pretty much anything on our own homes, which now restricts what work the average person can do legally. We've got numerous Competent Person Schemes with all of their training, registration and on-going membership requirements, more industry bodies and schemes than you can shake a stick at.
It's not that Britain has too little regulation, in some areas I'd argue we have too much, but rather it's that a lot of the regulation is poorly defined and inadequately enforced. Britain also seems to have a serious problem with regulation creep, where because regulation is itself now a profit-making industry, all of those bodies involved with regulation are continually pushing to expand their power, expand their responsibilities, introduce new requirements to then require further training, further accreditation all with more fees and incomes to those bodies and training providers. It isn't clear whether this is actually raising standards and beneficial to the end consumer.
Britain has far too much regulation, with so much that it is unenforceable, we need less regulation, cut it back to the really important things but with much more rigorous enforcement processes for those critical regulations.

@temperature_gradient

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Britain has far too much regulation, with so much that it is unenforceable, we need less regulation, cut it back to the really important things but with much more rigorous enforcement processes for those critical regulations.

The problem with this argument is, what is critical/important?  Obviously people will disagree.  So if you start of with the ideological principle of little regulation, as you propose, you will almost certainly not get the regulation that is critical to you.  Whatever you may think someone else wont want it/wont deem it critical and, if the principle is little regulation the arguments against hold more sway than arguments for.   

However, as I say, low regulation has been the argument for 53 out of 80 years since the second world war, and what we have is the result.  I'm not saying that's wrong or right, just how it is.  With this approach don't expect bombproof consumer protection or even building regulations that stop 72 people dying in a tower block fire.  

Also I disagree that regulation is unenforceable, it is enforceable through the courts.  The problem with this is that going through the courts is a slow process which most individuals wont be willing to do.  Of course one could set up some state backed 'regulation police' as an alternative individuals going through the courts, but thats effectively more regulation which you oppose. 

Your point about regulation being industry led is something that I wouldn't argue with.  However this is also a consequence of our choice to elect governments committed to low taxes and a reduced civil service.  The consequence is a civil service that is reliant in part on industry for technical advice, and less capable of challenging the (almost inevitably partisan) advice when its given by the industry.  Thus there will inevitably be an element of regulation that 'suits' industry, even in a 'low' regulation regime.   As I say above MCS is a great example of this, set up, arguably for good reason, by Government but then privatised and funded by the industry.  What outcome do you expect?

Again I'm not saying that any of this is wrong or right, just that we have to own the real-world consequences of our decisions, rather than blaming everything on others, remembering always that human beings will, for the most part, act in their own self interest.  

Of course it is easy just to blame everything we dislike on 'others' and deny any personal responsibility.  Elections are won that way so its also very powerful.  

@temperature_gradient, @jamespa, I think there is a significant trap that is easily overlooked. “Unenforced” and “unenforceable” are linked but not the same thing. Eventually, we have a lot of regulation that is perfectly enforceable but is to all intents and purposes not enforced. That has the effect of removing that regulation entirely since, if it’s ignored, it might as well not exist.

I don’t have all the solutions but the answer cannot be more regulation that is similarly ignored. A good start, IMHO, would be improving enforcement of existing regulations and pressuring MCS etc. to do their job seems an obvious first step. However, that requires political cohones and I see precious little of that in any of the parties on offer.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

I don’t have all the solutions but the answer cannot be more regulation that is similarly ignored. A good start, IMHO, would be improving enforcement of existing regulations and pressuring MCS etc. to do their job seems an obvious first step. However, that requires political cohones and I see precious little of that in any of the parties on offer.

Before worrying about cohones you need to have the political desire.  A low regulation environment also comes with a presumption against special government-sponsored systems to enforce regulation, because these are themselves more regulation and of course raise taxes.  We have a system, the courts, it works if we choose to use it.   That is entirely consistent with a low regulation mindset and I think those who espouse that mindset would argue that nothing else is needed

I would argue that the current government may well have the political desire, but as you say doesn't (by and large) currently have the cohones and, like you, probably doesn't currently have a solution even if it did.  I would also argue that, in a political environment where the electorate predominately vote for low regulation, that is something we cant reasonably expect in a first term, its more a second or even third term thing.

So IMHO we have to make a choice.  Low regulation and enforcement through the courts only (= low enforcement) or higher regulation and maybe, if we give a government sufficient time and make our desires clear, a more stringent enforcement regime (albeit at the cost of higher taxes).

Yet again we need, IMHO, to own the consequences of our decisions.

 

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

A good start, IMHO, would be improving enforcement of existing regulations and pressuring MCS etc. to do their job seems an obvious first step.

The current Government has clearly indicated it intends to monitor MCS more closely from a consumer protection standpoint than was the case under previous governments.  It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect in the remaining approx three years of the current term.  I would argue that this is barely long enough for any major effect to be visible, so our expectations should be fairly low however hard the government may try.  If, at the next general election, we choose a government which has a similar political desire, then I think we can reasonably expect greater change.  If we again opt for low regulation, then not so much.

That said it is unclear to me what the job of MCS actually is.  Since 2018 it became a private body sponsored by the industry and as such is primarily answerable to industry not to the electorate, the Government or consumers.  It does have a privileged position, which is the leverage the Government has over it.  That leverage only applies (since May 2025 in England) when the BUS grant (or other grant that requires MCS) is in play, not to any case where there is no such grant.  That's significant but not absolute. 

The fact that MCS is a private body sponsored by the industry is, you surely cannot deny, a more or less direct consequence of our collective preference, expressed through the ballot box, for low regulation and low taxes.

 

Once again Im not advocating any particular position, but I do feel very strongly that we need to accept that we make choices when we cast our votes, and own the consequence of those choices even when that works against us.