Posted by: @nettechie

↑

Interested to hear how others have navigated this and whether this pay‑to‑quote culture is just the norm now in the renewables world.

I found a fair few ASHP installers who would give a provisional estimate based on some basic details of the house, but would then want to do a full survey before confirming.  On balance I think thats fair, doing a full heat loss survey (eg) takes 3 hours and someone has to pay.  Plenty of timewasters out there who would get this done if it were free without any intention of proceeding, which means that you (who presumably does intend to proceed) have to pay for the time wasters as well as for the fact that everyone is going to get at least 3 quotes so the max hit rate an installer can reasonably expect is 33%.

For your ASHP I would anyway recommend doing your own heat loss estimate or at least sense checking what installers say against measured consumption.  The figures can be wildly out (in my case by more than a factor of 2) and you don't want an oversized unit (equally you dont want undersized, but that is less likely).  If you are upgrading insulation there is absolutely no guarantee that they will take this into account even if you tell them to!

Posted by: @nettechie

↑

...

Interested to hear how others have navigated this and whether this pay‑to‑quote culture is just the norm now in the renewables world.

It certainly is common, but it highlights an important point.

When we were getting ready to get a heat pump, we talked with several potential installers. Ditto for our solar PV. We were nowhere near as technically clued up as we are now but we did know what kind of tradespeople work well for us and don't. The company we went with got the job because, in no small amount, they were more inclined to listen than talk.

Any installer that won't give non-binding ballpark estimates despite being told about an existing heat loss estimate (and who has had a chance to come and look around the property for an initial site visit) is not listening. If they give good reasons as to why there are still too many grey areas to make even a rough guess, that's fair enough and you can decide whether they're being straight or trying to wheedle out of any kind of commitment. All this adds to the picture of whether or not you want to do business with them, irrespective of industry norms.

Posted by: @nettechie

↑

In most industries, an estimate is the starting point. Builders give ballparks before architectural drawings. Car garages quote before diagnostics. Even solicitors outline likely costs before you sign an engagement letter. Yet in the renewables sector, the default seems to be: “Pay us first, then we’ll tell you what the job might cost.” It’s often justified with “MCS rules” or “we can’t quote without full modelling,” but from a customer’s perspective it feels like a barrier to entry and a convenient way to charge for what is essentially pre‑sales work.

You are I suspect "on the money" when you mention MCS: I asked for a PV quote. I stated exactly what I have and what we need. After being asked (and declining to answer) what my electricity bill is, I received over 6 pages with all sorts of calculations about production and what I could save, etc. This is what MCS means, they were not able to give a simple estimate and the quote eroded my potential ROI. 

MCS's "best practice" has probably been built as a way to try to reduce mis-selling and over promising. But since if and when an installed system underperforms, MCS generally takes the side of the installer, it is debatable whether it really helps. 

My approach (once I learnt how BESS works) was to hire electricians and manage the install myself, which kept a sizeable budget cushion for small iterations. 

As for paying upfront for ASHP quotes (and a big difference was to not be under the pressure of an ongoing deep retrofit), my experience may help.

I contacted a few suppliers like EDF, Octopus, etc giving them a deep enough description of our requirements (that are very stable) and they were happy to send indicative estimates even when I stated we were not ready to go forward. Of course I got pages and pages of boilerplate info. But the design temperature was nowhere to be found!  

You’ve all hit on something important: there’s a huge difference between useful early‑stage information and the pages of boilerplate that many companies send out. What I’m finding is that the firms willing to give a ballpark figure upfront—subject to survey and proper heat‑loss design—are also the ones who provide the most relevant detail: model options, indicative labour, and the broad cost structure. That’s all I need at this stage to understand whether they’re even in the right universe.

What I’m pushing back against is the opposite approach: lots of generic documentation, lots of “MCS says we must…”, but no actual numbers until I’ve paid for surveys, modelling, or design work. I’ve already done my own heat‑loss calculations and double, triple checked them. I’m not expecting anyone to trust my numbers blindly, but it’s frustrating when companies ignore all of that and still insist on paid work before offering even a rough estimate.

In a previous life I designed cinema rooms, and the principle was the same. I never told a prospective client that I needed to build and simulate a 3D acoustic model to verify the correct sound pressures and produce a materials specification before giving them a ballpark. To be worth my salt, I gave a low/medium/high range based on brand level and complexity. If they wanted to proceed, then we moved into paid design. That’s how most industries work: early‑stage estimates first, detailed engineering later.

I’m not against paying for proper design once I’ve shortlisted a supplier. That’s completely reasonable. But paying multiple companies just to find out who is vaguely affordable feels like a barrier to entry—and it’s one that pushes technically capable people like me closer to DIY or self‑managed installs.

@nettechie, welcome to the forums. What you’re running into isn’t really about MCS, modelling or “best practice”… it’s essentially about risk transfer. A lot of installers are using paid surveys and design work as a way to de-risk their sales pipeline and monetise pre-sales time, because they’re swamped, under-resourced or simply not confident enough to even give a sensible range without locking the client in first.

There is a reasonable middle ground, and you’ve described it perfectly. A competent installer should be able to look at high-level inputs (floor area, build type, target flow temps, emitter strategy, your own heat-loss figures) and say: “You’re broadly in this band. If we proceed, we’ll validate everything properly.” That’s not a quote, it’s a sanity check and refusing to do even that is usually a commercial choice, not a technical necessity.

You’re also right to be sceptical of the “we must redo everything” stance. Of course an installer needs to stand behind their own design eventually (nobody sensible disputes that) but refusing to even engage with homeowner-produced data at the early stage is often a red flag. Good designers will treat your work as a starting hypothesis, not something to be ignored or dismissed out of hand.

The irony, as you’ve spotted, is that this behaviour actively filters out the best customers: informed, realistic, technically literate homeowners who are ready to proceed but need confidence on budget before committing. At the same time they may perceive you as too prepared and a potential pain the backside when works starts. God forbid the homeowner gets what they want! It’s one of the reasons the sector struggles with trust and uptake.

I think you’re doing exactly the right thing by questioning it. Stick around and keep sharing how you get on.

@editor 

It makes sense that installers are trying to reduce the overall cost of sales by using these approaches to re-risk and monetise. The free estimates that I received for ASHP were desk-side exercises. Installers love to be able to state that someone independent like MCS requires them to use best practices, specially if they can get away with payment for pre-sales work. 

@nettechie seems to be a well informed buyer. I am also looking forward to hear how he will navigate past these initial hurdles! Of course some of these installers may even be aware they are self selecting themselves out anyway.. 

We had many cases in the past where tradespeople would engage better when we approached them as relatively uninformed buyers and looking to learn from their advice and suggestions. 

Posted by: @nettechie

↑

I’m not against paying for proper design once I’ve shortlisted a supplier. That’s completely reasonable. But paying multiple companies just to find out who is vaguely affordable feels like a barrier to entry—and it’s one that pushes technically capable people like me closer to DIY or self‑managed installs.

I agree completely, but we see very little DIY on ASHP installations. 

As you are doing a very significant upgrade, you can consider disruptive work like UFH. So the design can vary a lot. A suitable ASHP installer would appreciate the choices you made and provide a rough estimate based on that. 

If the work is partially funded from schemes like BUS, it makes sense to consider the installer viewpoint carefully, specially in terms of the timeline of payments and certification. Most of the BUS work is for more straightforward low disruption work.