Posted by: @jamespa

↑

The problem with this argument is, what is critical/important?

Risk based - does a particular activity/product pose a significant risk to people, in terms of harm, requiring regulation to bring that risk down to a tolerable level.

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.  

There's a difference between the quantity of regulation and the quality of that regulation. I disagree that Britain is a 'low regulation' country, in terms of the quantity of regulation, Britain has masses of regulation. I would argue the problems lies not with the quantity and the broad scope of activities covered, but rather the quality of that regulation and the enforcement of it is where the problem is.
We need less quantity, but better quality and better enforced regulation. That has been the issue with building fires, we have lots of regulations covering this, and testing houses and processes but the quality of that regulation, its effectiveness and enforcement is where the problem lies.

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. 

If the mechanism for enforcement is highly slow, inefficient or unworkable then the outcome is the same as if it's unenforceable, because effectively it is.
It wouldn't be a state 'regulation police' rather it would be likely be a reversion back to more local building inspection and a much tighter, more crisply defined regulations on what building products can be used, product testing, minimum acceptable designs etc.

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.   

I agree there's a real problem about the UK Government and civil service and it's lack of technical expertise, which affects a vast number of policy areas.

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 though it's the difference between quantity of regulation and quality, we do have significant quantity of regulation around these areas. For a heat pump, it needs to meet and be signed off against the Building Regs to be legal, which in practice (for almost all installs) means it needs to be installed by a installation company registered in a Competent Person Scheme, in theory the company and its staff need to have been adequately trained, follow the standards, they're tested, the company is accredited, they're part of consumer redress schemes etc etc.
There's a very large amount of regulation here, no lack of quantity we don't need more, any issues lie in the quality and the enforcement and the regulation we've already got.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

The problem with this argument is, what is critical/important?

 

 

Risk based - does a particular activity/product pose a significant risk to people, in terms of harm, requiring regulation to bring that risk down to a tolerable level.

So does that excludes consumer protection (which is what triggered this discussion) other than safety matters (which weren't involved in the trigger)?

If it does include consumer protection what is 'significant'.  To someone with little money every £ is significant.  To Jeff Bezos £1M is small change?   This particular case is £10-20K, nothing to Jeff Bezos, an annoyance but ultimately bearable to many, life changing to many others.  Where do you draw the line and more importantly how do you get agreement on that and the tax/cost implications?

As I say people will disagree and if the disposition is to low regulation then you wont get the regulation you want, because others will have different priorities.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

There's a difference between the quantity of regulation and the quality of that regulation. I disagree that Britain is a 'low regulation' country, in terms of the quantity of regulation, Britain has masses of regulation. I would argue the problems lies not with the quantity and the broad scope of activities covered, but rather the quality of that regulation and the enforcement of it is where the problem is.

We need less quantity, but better quality and better enforced regulation. That has been the issue with building fires, we have lots of regulations covering this, and testing houses and processes but the quality of that regulation, its effectiveness and enforcement is where the problem lies.

I didn't originally say we were a low regulation country, what I said originally was that for 53 out of 80 years we have elected governments that are ideologically disposed towards low government intervention/regulation.  That disposition could manifest itself in ineffective regulation (ie regulation in name only - there for appearance but deliberately near useless in practice) just as it could manifest itself in low regulation.  I would argue it has in fact done a mix of both and that MCS is (possibly by design) actually a shining example of a regulator that may not be useless, but clearly doesn't fulfill people's expectations.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

If the mechanism for enforcement is highly slow, inefficient or unworkable then the outcome is the same as if it's unenforceable, because effectively it is.

It wouldn't be a state 'regulation police' rather it would be likely be a reversion back to more local building inspection and a much tighter, more crisply defined regulations on what building products can be used, product testing, minimum acceptable designs etc.

The first point is undeniably true for those with little money.  Unless the issue is life threatening its not true for people who can afford to wait for the courts.  For them its just a manageable cash flow matter because they will eventually recover by suing the culprit.  Again it depends on your perspective.  For those with the money to sue, regulation (other than for life threatening things) is largely unnecessary.  This itself has consequences which I will touch on towards the end.

Local building inspection is a form of state regulation police, ie its a government sponsored/defined organisation which polices regulations.  If the electors express a preference for low regulation/low tax then expanding this force this runs contrary to the preferences expressed by the electorate.  It has to be paid for one way or another and if we dont want to pay for it we cant expect to have it.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

and a much tighter, more crisply defined regulations on what building products can be used, product testing, minimum acceptable designs etc.

Who will write this?  Who will do the product testing.  If its to be independent of the industry it will need to be state supported or a tax on the industry which is then used by one level of Government or another to sponsor independent work.  The building regulations are already pretty crisp from my reading so we are going to need some even better people and thus we will have to pay them more.  

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Again though it's the difference between quantity of regulation and quality, we do have significant quantity of regulation around these areas. For a heat pump, it needs to meet and be signed off against the Building Regs to be legal, which in practice (for almost all installs) means it needs to be installed by a installation company registered in a Competent Person Scheme, in theory the company and its staff need to have been adequately trained, follow the standards, they're tested, the company is accredited, they're part of consumer redress schemes etc etc.

This whole discussion started because of a clear example where this doesn't work to protect the customer.    So everything you say in the above quote may be true, but it doesnt address the point that triggered the discussion.

 

IMHO the other thing to bear in mind is that regulation, other than for life threatening matters, doesn't materially advantage those who have the means to sue.  In fact it probably disadvantages them because effective regulation enforced other than through the courts costs money and they are quite likely to end up paying more (through taxation, levies or restrictions on what they can do to rip other people off) than it would cost them simply to sue on the occasions when things go wrong for them.  It may advantage such people if there is some ineffective regulation, it doesnt cost much, fools a good proportion of people for long enough to secure their vote, and provides a reason to argue against regulation in the future!

Thus the only thing that almost everyone has a shared motivation to regulate well is life threatening matters.  Even that isnt quite as simple as it first seems, those who are unlikely to live in tower blocks in Kensington and Chelsea have little motivation to regulate well even life threatening things that only affect such tower blocks!  Ultimately it comes down largely to an argument about the extent we should, as a nation, protect those who do not have the means, at the expense of those who do.  Answers to that one in the ballot box please!

My fundamental point though is that we, by and large, get what we vote for, within the constraints of the real world, which is populated by imperfect people most of whom act largely in their own self interest.  Therefore we have to take some responsibility for that.  Put another way Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells should IMHO consider whether their own voting choices have contributed to the situation with which they are expressing disgust and, if they have, should recognise that their moral right to complain is severely curtailed.  I am not referring to anyone in particular, but I would be fairly certain that some who complain about the situation both here and elsewhere fall into this category.

@ian-w  Getting back to the problem in hand, what do you plan to do next? 

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, remain happy to try.  As I said earlier your principal component, the Vaillant 10/12kW heat pump, is a good piece of kit so this situation is surely recoverable quite possibly at modest cost. 

Even if all you did was to work out, with the help of those here, what actually must be done (and what could be left) that might well help your next steps

Most of you will have seen Sarah and Ian Ward's thread and their experience of a botched installation in south Manchester, an incompatible cylinder, a collapsed installer and an IWA insurance policy that turned out to be near-worthless when they needed it most. We published their story on the site and I've been working with them in the background since to try to get some traction.

Today that work landed. The Financial Times published a full reported piece on what happens when heat pump installations go wrong, and Sarah and Ian are at the centre of it. Renewable Heating Hub and our forum data featured centrally in the piece too. If you haven't read it, it's worth your time: https://www.ft.com/content/83d3342b-55dd-4414-8ccc-e7c25423550e

Here are some RHH-related snippets from the piece.

 

Now, to the MCS bit in the article, because this is where it gets interesting.

Ian Rippin, CEO of MCS, made two commitments in the piece. First, that MCS will from now on handle all complaints an installer hasn't addressed. Second, that all 5,000 UK heat pump installers will be vetted before admission to a new scheme by March 2027, focused on quality work rather than paperwork.

The driving test analogy used in the piece sums up the structural problem as well as I've ever heard it put: when the enforcers who run the driving test depend on subscription fees paid by the very installers they're supposed to be policing, you can fail the test and still be waved through. That's not a bug in the MCS model... it's a feature (possibly intentional) of how it was built. The certification bodies are private companies with a commercial relationship with the installers they certify. The incentives are not aligned with the consumer... I'd argue they are polar opposites.

So are the commitments welcome? Yes. Are they sufficient? I really don't know. And do I have confidence in MCS's ability to execute? Based on track record, definitely not.

This is an organisation that has been aware of the complaints problem for years. Our own forum data, which I've shared with MCS directly, showed installer quality complaint mentions growing 24-fold between 2021 and 2024. Not 24%. 24-fold!

The certification concerns in our data grew 259% over the same period. MCS has known the direction of travel for a long time and the response has been slow. The IBG insurance framework was also structurally flawed from the start.

@jamespa pulled out his own IWA policy in this thread and concluded it was near-worthless. MCS-approved insurance that is near-worthless is not a minor administrative oversight. It's a shocking failure of consumer protection!

The vetting of 5,000 installers by March 2027 is an ambitious target on a tight timeline. The question is what vetting actually means in practice. Does it identify and remove the incompetent, or does it create a paper trail that looks like quality assurance without actually delivering it? The history of this market gives you reason to ask, and I suspect I already know the answer.

Is it too late for some of these reforms? For Sarah and Ian (who are still fighting to get the system they paid for) yes, it is too late. For the thousands of other homeowners in similar positions with nowhere to turn, it's also too late. Reform that arrives in 2027 doesn't help anyone who had their installation in 2022 or 2023. That's not a reason not to reform.. it's a reason to be clear-eyed about who these announcements are and aren't helping.

I've contacted MCS's communications team to invite Ian Rippin onto the RHH Homeowners' Q&A podcast to talk about this directly... the failures to this point, what's actually changing and why anyone should believe it will be different this time. That conversation should happen in public, with a homeowner audience, not in a trade press statement. If he's willing to come on, I'll let you know... I don't think he will because i've invited him on several times in the past 18 months, and it's always been scheduling issues. 

In the meantime, Sarah and @ian-w (if you're reading this) thank you for sharing your story and for not letting it drop. 

For me this is a failure not just of the heat pump industry, it's also a failure of the financial services industry. 

Insurance is as technical as heating systems. Insurers understand insurance, and have.a moral responsibility to design products that are fit for purpose, just as much as heating engineers have a moral responsibility to design heating systems that are fit for purpose.  They haven't.  Unless they were told by MCS (or whoever commissioned them) to make it next to useless this is inexcusable (and even if the were told to make it next to useless they should have added a health warning).

That doesn't absolve MCS for one minute, they (presumably) endorse the product if only by implication.  Arguably it does, to a limited extent, take a bit of the edge of the blame for the 'smaller' installers, who can no more be expected to be skilled in interpreting insurance that a rich financier in London can be expected to be skilled in designing heating systems.  The insurers should be ashamed of themselves, the product I was sold was literally worthless and I would be willing to bet that my one man band installer genuinely didn't realise that because it is not his skillset.  I was fortunate that I didn't have to call on it but this tale has made me suspect insurance products even more than previously.  'White collar' immorality is still immorality!

 

Many of the estimates we received mention IWA and RECC. I try to not read much into it. As @jamespa says, an installer is not expected to be able to evaluate these products in detail. 
The method used to sell this insurance, where someone agrees to it with only a title of a document (the document only being made available when requested) gives it away a bit. 
But if consumers are to consume, they cannot be mentally testing and investigating every possibility to identify what seems to me a plain and simple an insurance scam. Products like this are simply abusing the system of Financial Regulation that the vast majority of industry parties stick to. These are parasitical relationships, the effect being very similar to misuse of a brand. 

"The method used to sell this insurance, where someone agrees to it with only a title of a document (the document only being made available when requested) gives it away a bit. "
Fortunately insurance is covered by the consumers rights rules so misrepresentation, and unfair clauses are covered. Might even be an opportunity to sue the installer as well if the installer or their professional body had reason to believe the insurance policy was not actually of any use and so were either mis-selling it or negligent.
I'm not sure its a failure of consumer protection so much as a failure of people to know their rights and be willing to take on insurers all the time. Deny Delay Defend isn't just a US healthcare scum thing, it's the whole industry that relies on people not being willing to take every reasonable refused claim to arbitration or small claims.
The laws are there, the enforcement is as ever a joke because UK government wilfully defunded everything involved in regulatory oversight to the point that our rivers are full of turds, our shops full of unsafe goods, kids sand has asbestos in it and temu sells exploding ebikes with impunity. Trump was incompetent and abolished everything he hated so people noticed, our lot were just smarter and people didn't notice.
 

@jamespa you’re absolutely right that the financial services dimension of this failure has been largely invisible in the public conversation. Everyone focuses on the installers, and rightly so, but the insurance product sitting behind MCS certification was presented to homeowners as meaningful consumer protection. In most cases it has proven to be anything but. Whether that is by design, by negligence or by the kind of institutional indifference that produces unreadable policy documents full of exclusion and get out clauses, the outcome for the homeowner is identical.

The point about installers is one I think deserves more credit than it usually gets. A one-man-band heating engineer is not in a position to forensically assess the insurance product their accreditation scheme has attached to their work. They are told it protects their customers and they have no choice but to accept it. They pass that assurance on in good faith. The fact that the product does not perform as described is not something they have the expertise or the regulatory standing to scrutinise.

That does not let bad installers off the hook for bad installations. But it does mean that when we talk about the consumer protection failure in this market, we need to be precise about where the responsibility sits. MCS endorses the product by association. The insurer designed a product that does not deliver what a reasonable person would expect it to deliver. Those are the accountable parties on the financial services side… apparently that’s supposed to change under this new magical MCS 2.0. Let’s see.

White collar immorality is exactly the right phrase. Bang on.

@batpred spot on.

When a consumer agrees to an insurance product by accepting a title rather than reading terms that are only available on request, that is not informed consent… it’s a process designed to generate a signature rather than genuine understanding and the FCA’s own rules on fair presentation of insurance products exist precisely to prevent this. Whether those rules are being applied with any rigour to MCS-attached warranty products is a question that has not, to my knowledge, been asked publicly or answered.

Your broader point about the limits of consumer due diligence is one that the financial services industry has been resistant to accepting for decades. The theoretical position is that consumers should read everything before signing. The practical reality is that nobody does, nobody can, and the system is structured in a way that exploits that gap rather than closing it. A product that relies on the consumer not reading the exclusion clauses in order to sell is not a product that has been designed in good faith… and that’s precisely why the insurance industry is worth billions.

An update.

The Wards have won.

Following the recent coverage and the wider publicity generated by this community, IWA Insurance have reversed their position and agreed to fund the significant remediation work on Sarah and Ian's installation. @liamk (part of the Renewable Heating installer network) has been contacted directly to carry out the work. Eight of the ten documented non-conformities will be rectified at the insurer's expense.

We see too many homeowners in identical situations who are scared to make noise, worried about being difficult or simply exhausted into silence by a process designed to wear them down. The Wards refused to be worn down, and it made all the difference.

The full update is here: https://renewableheatinghub.co.uk/when-you-fight-back-how-one-couples-refusal-to-give-up-changed-everything

If you are going through something similar, please do not stay quiet. DM or email me (editor@renewableheatinghub.co.uk).

@ian-w, congratulations to you both. Despite the fact I'm only a homeowner like you, I can't help feeling vicariously saddened that you are owed a huge apology from the heat pump industry for what you've been put through. Nonetheless, I'm very pleased you've finally had a measure of acknowledgement and success even if it'd be rather a push to call it justice. Well done.

@editor Mars thank you! Tbh you have been the only person in this whole sorry debacle that can clearly see what the problems are, how to fix them, and that has the courage to speak truth to power. Others in this industry, who are being paid very significant salaries in the regulatory bodies, the insurance sector and government are frankly failing to do their job properly. I doubt this is a coincidence. There’s too much greed and short-term profiteering which is what you get in a highly privatised, rapidly expanding new sector. It’s no wonder that the majority of other European countries are way ahead of the UK in adopting cleaner, greener technologies. This is yet another example of ‘Rip Off Britain’ where those in power have the means to make a quick buck at the expense of well-meaning punters who are just trying to ‘do the right thing’ environmentally and are being let down, if not scammed, by them all. Unless those in power stand up to the corporate greed and corruption, especially in the insurance industry, people in the UK will continue to be beholden to the fossil fuel companies and the instability of the global energy market for decades to come.

Finding out about the Renewable Heating Hub, and having you take on our case was a game changer Mars. If I’m honest, we were close to the point of giving up, like many before us. People reading these comments need to know that you have walked alongside us, offering relevant, experienced advice at every step. You gave up your weekend to read through the 84 separate reports, correspondence and research that made up our case, and had the tenacity to keep fighting for us (and many others like us) behind the scenes, even when the chance of success looked bleak. Words are not enough to thank you.

Going back to the point about structural failures (and the driving test analogy), isn’t this exactly what has been going on in the water industry for years? Ofwat, the water regulator, is funded by individual water companies, and therefore cannot enforce regulations without compromising its own source of income. It’s not surprising that our seas and rivers are now full of sewage. Structural failure is at the heart of many of the UK’s problems, and these structures always seem to benefit the wealthy, leaving the rest of us to suffer.