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