Hi Mars - thanks so much for posting this.

Let me clarify MCS' response. MCS were made aware of detailed technical claims in direct breach of their standards. They know that HIES are limited in their powers and not an end destination. HIES did not devise an accurate heat loss as part of their own remit, which focussed solely on the heat pump, rather than installer negligence that led me to having to replace my roof, alone, unskilled, in the wettest winter on record.

There has been no advocacy, care, or support, of any kind.

When I pleaded for the most basic courtesy of a phone call. Or to simply 'hear' my evidence or situation, they refused. Detailed email history is available, togethe with a Subject Access Request, further showing that MCS immediately requested a call with the installer, received their evidence, failed to analyse my own, and took their word at face value.

I am not alone. Many others have reported MCS' flagrant disregard for their own standards.

Which competent oversight body ignores the plight of a vulnerable homeowner and accepts blindly and without technical assessment, the assertions of a highly dubious installer, leaving the homeowner without any form of resolution save for the courts.

Please see here for more insight as to the installer in question. https://nature-society.org/the-collapse-of-consumer-energy-solutions-a-systemic-failure-hidden-in-plain-sight/

I invite MCS to engage in technical evidence and a site visit, rather than their own immediate commercial interest.

@mcs-do-better, thank you for taking the time to add this clarification and for doing so publicly and constructively.

What your comment underlines, and what concerned us most when reviewing your evidence, is not simply the technical failings of a single installation, but the absence of meaningful advocacy or resolution once things went wrong. As you’ve set out, the complaint process appears to have narrowed prematurely, with complex and interconnected issues treated in isolation rather than as part of a wider pattern of installer conduct and system failure. 

I find the complaint process has been designed to wear people down.

You are also right to point out that you are not alone. We continue to hear from many homeowners who describe similar difficulties navigating complaint routes, particularly where responsibility is fragmented across installers, consumer codes and certification bodies. There are hundreds of cases that echo this across of our forums.

I also want to make it clear that the article (and your comment) are not about opposing heat pumps. They are about ensuring that confidence in the technology is not undermined by poor practice, weak oversight or a lack of accountability when things go wrong. 

Hi Mars - thanks so much for posting this.

Let me clarify MCS' response. MCS were made aware of detailed technical claims in direct breach of their standards. They know that HIES are limited in their powers and not an end destination. HIES did not devise an accurate heat loss as part of their own remit, which focussed solely on the heat pump, rather than installer negligence that led me to having to replace my roof, alone, unskilled, in the wettest winter on record.

Heat loss figures were allegedly misrepresented by the installer, who showed uninsulated walls to have been insulated, in order to avoid regulatory scrutiny. I posess full documentation and call recordings in evidence of these claims.

MCS offered no advocacy, care, or support, of any kind.

When I pleaded for the most basic courtesy of a phone call. Or to simply 'hear' my evidence or situation, they refused. Detailed email history is available, together with a Subject Access Request, further showing that MCS immediately requested a call with the installer, received their evidence, failed to analyse my own, and took their word at face value.

Following HIES' involvement, the installer failed to install radiators in no less than 5 of the habitable rooms. Needless to say, the system could not possibly have been re-commissioned to MCS' standards. Frankly, a 5 year old knows the difference between radiator or no radiator - insulation or no insulation - heat or no heat. MCS made no such assessment.

I am not alone. Many others have reported MCS' flagrant disregard for their own standards.

Which competent oversight body ignores the plight of a vulnerable homeowner and accepts blindly and without technical assessment, the assertions of a highly dubious installer, leaving the homeowner without any form of resolution save for the courts.

It is worth noting that the installer's central argument - that they were excluded from having to properly commission a heating system given that they had damaged my roof so severely that I had altered it structurally. It has since transpired that the installer allegedly engaged in RdSAP misrepresentation, resulting in a materially higher grant payment, including misrepresentation of the size of the property as per its state at the start of the install. My home has been all but ruined and remains as such to this day.

If any inspectors / quality assessors are out there and wish to pop by, please do!!!

I invite MCS to engage in technical evidence and a site visit, rather than their own immediate commercial interest.

Please see here for more insight as to the installer in question.  https://nature-society.org/the-collapse-of-consumer-energy-solutions-a-systemic-failure-hidden-in-plain-sight/ 

Thank you Mars - there is nothing in the comment I will not stand by - whether in a court of law, or in any official statement. I admire you for taking the time to influence this dire state of affairs for the better.

I’m also looking for a avenue to Raise a complaint, our system has leaked from day one most of the time it’s not worked at all in the 3 years it been installed.when it has managed to run it consumes huge amounts of electric , insulation has introduced damp to our walls , electrical work undertaken is dangerous , it’s bern a complete nightmare from start to finish

@mcs-do-better, quite honestly, I’m deflated by how dreadful and ineffective the complaint process is. MCS are promising that this will be improved in MCS 2.0 and I have been asking for nearly a year about their new process and they just keep ignoring me.

I’ve also publicly voiced that MCS should refund £7,500 to the government for each failed install. We’d see how quickly standards would improve if that happened. 

There a lot of excellent and good installs out there, but the bad ones are really bad, and it’s scandalous that there’s no recourse for consumers when systems get botched.

The sad thing is Mars, when you send this post to MCS, they will do as all good 'assurance' bodies do. Ignore, silence, suppress, deflect, deny. When they could simply, engage, listen, improve, be humble, be curious, deploy empathy; and, in the extreme...possibly even seek to enforce the standards they preside over.

I am quite interested in your dealings with HIES. I did a podcast with them and they were very confident that most cases that came before them were sorted out in favour of homeowners. I’m still to meet a homeowner that has had the assistance of MCS or one of the consumer codes (HIES or RECC) in getting a poor install fixed. Would be good to hear more on that…

Also, were you then deflected onto any of the certification bodies?

Given my fact busting RdSAP 98 achieving install (my house is 200 years old) thanks so much for publishing this experience which very much echo's my own.

Unlike support offered so far elsewhere thanks to Renewable Heating Hub my ECO4 install was improved (DHW SCOP from 1.7 to 3.4, Heating SCOP 1.2 to1.9 - it would have been much more if the heating was remotely effective).

IE. Given well informed professional advice (such as that of RHH members) the ASHP tech is remarkable, however it is fallible and can be completely undermined by morons.  

Over the past year we have been referred from pillar to post.

Given the state of regulation any ASHP install should come with a health warning.

“In order to get any regulatory action engagement with: CEO of a Certification Scheme; the entire board of directors of a Consumer Code; CEO & Membership Director of the current Certification Scheme; the entire board of directors of a Certification Body; CEO of a national Accreditation Body; Corporate Services Director of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute; Lord & Vice Chairman for Consumer Protection (APPG); Chairman of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; Chancellor of the Exchequer; CEO of OFGEM; the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State DESNZ; the Secretary of State DESNZ; the Secretary of State for Business and Trade; your MP; Action Fraud; OFGEM Counter Fraud; and the entirety of Parliamentary Accounts Committee over the course of the following year will be required.”

Whilst it would be nice to compartmentalise the problems we’ve experienced into an ECO4 problem, the majority of issues were within the regulatory system of the industry itself. At the top of which now sits the MCS who, in our experience, was the worst offender.

In my case MCS: ignored my concerns that ZERO documentation had been provided and did nothing for 6 months (MCS internal case files confirm my complaint was repeatedly closed having taken no action until we emailed CEO Ian Rippin); then seemingly explained they did nothing anyway; before apparently defending the necessity for a bucket of water in my loft (as undocumented but by design) enabling such cutting edge technology (oversized ASHP x3 undersized and 1 missing rad was later confirmed); then stating the installer couldn’t be expected to predict the number of solar panels installed due to the unpredictable nature of the sun (MCS policy apparently); confirming they have no involvement with PAS2035 (bodes well for WHP); before finally sending me someone else’s personal data in response to our SAR.

Thankfully all involved seem relatively indifferent to the consequences of their actions. It is Fraud after all and can be evidenced at your request.

HIES overall are good but limited. They are the only accrediting body to have reached out proactively to seek improvement, which I was impressed and reassured by. The reality is, complex cases require on the ground technical resources and where health risks are concerned, clear instruction / ultimatum to installers. Heat should be a non-negotiable under a scheme designed to provide affordable heat. This statement seems obvious, however, in ECO4, the power sits with the installers and the bodies that protect them over the needs of often-vulnerable homeowners.

Posted by: @mcs-do-better

↑

The sad thing is Mars, when you send this post to MCS, they will do as all good 'assurance' bodies do. Ignore, silence, suppress, deflect, deny. When they could simply, engage, listen, improve, be humble, be curious, deploy empathy; and, in the extreme...possibly even seek to enforce the standards they preside over.

Why do they not get replaced by NICEIC, assuming they want to get into it? I found that they are effective. Perhaps what they regulate is not as complex, certainly it is less varied, but the "product" that they sell is also bound to be less valuable...

Perhaps the monopoly should be reduced in chunks, like first they loose any certificates for electric energy storage - tenuous value, then the PV bits, etc. Would the first thing not be to make sure the country owns some of these base standards? Unless they are more widely applicable..