If the BUS goes, I see a lot of hest pump companies going bust. Im currently still trying to fix my install. Im now worried that if the BUS goes, the company won’t survive and I’ll be stuck.  

god I wish I had put a gas boiler in. I actually see this as one of the bigger mistakes ive made over the years. 

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

If the Government remove the grant then they should also be removing some of rigid and inflexible installation standards which push up the cost of installations, adding flexibility to bring down the cost of installations.

They have already done that if you don't take (or there is no) grant! (in England, I cannot comment on NI, Scotland or Wales) 

The 'rigid and inflexible installation standards' you refer to are the MCS design/installation standards. 

Prior to May 2025 conformance to MCS design and installation standards was a requirement to benefit from permitted development rights.  The changes that were made to the PD rights in May 2025 had the effect of removing the requirement that the installation be performed by and MCS installer to MCS standards, other than the noise standard.

You have to read the documents carefully to realise this and, oddly enough, MCS haven't advertised it, but it is undoubtedly the case.

So on this occasion your wish is granted!

Posted by: @davidnolan22

↑

I see a lot of hest pump companies going bust. Im currently still trying to fix my install. Im now worried that if the BUS goes, the company won’t survive and I’ll be stuck.  

god I wish I had put a gas boiler in. I actually see this as one of the bigger mistakes ive made over the years. 

You were supposed to get an insurance backed guarantee to guard against this.  The 'grant chasers' will indeed go bust, their business model is based on this and that it happens eventually is more or less a certainty.  The good guys will remain.

The same happened with solar panels.  That's probably why and insurance backed guarantee was a condition of both the heat pump and solar panel schemes thus affording a degree of consumer protection when eventually and inevitably the grant chasers wound up.

Whats the (remaining) problem(s) with your heat pump installation.  Properly done a heat pump should deliver greater comfort for around the same cost (or less) than a gas boiler.  Unfortunately the heating industry has not delivered this consistently, but that does not mean that it is not possible, particularly once warranties expire and you can do the right thing rather than whatever arbitrary abomination might have been imposed by your installer.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Prior to May 2025 conformance to MCS design and installation standards was a requirement to benefit from permitted development rights.  The changes that were made to the PD rights in May 2025 had the effect of removing the requirement that the installation be performed by and MCS installer to MCS standards, other than the noise standard.

But in practice, doesn't the need for Building Regs approval typically force you to comply with MCS? Because MCS as a competent person scheme can self-certify their installations, but that requires the installation follows their standards. If done outside of MCS, then it needs Building Regs sign off and when I spoke to my local Building Control department, they didn't know much about heat pumps and really didn't want to get involved, basically said they'd need to get it signed off by an MCS / heat-pump specialist. 

So while in theory, installations might not need to follow MCS standards to the letter, I suspect in practice given the state of the industry and building control, they may default to following MCS.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Prior to May 2025 conformance to MCS design and installation standards was a requirement to benefit from permitted development rights.  The changes that were made to the PD rights in May 2025 had the effect of removing the requirement that the installation be performed by and MCS installer to MCS standards, other than the noise standard.

But in practice, doesn't the need for Building Regs approval typically force you to comply with MCS? Because MCS as a competent person scheme can self-certify their installations, but that requires the installation follows their standards. If done outside of MCS, then it needs Building Regs sign off and when I spoke to my local Building Control department, they didn't know much about heat pumps and really didn't want to get involved, basically said they'd need to get it signed off by an MCS / heat-pump specialist. 

So while in theory, installations might not need to follow MCS standards to the letter, I suspect in practice given the state of the industry and building control, they may default to following MCS.

 

If it is anything like gas boilers in my experience not having building control sign off doesn't appear to be a big deal?

I recently sold my late mum's house, the boiler install wasn't registered. 

The indemnity insurance cost me £30... and everyone was happy. 

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Prior to May 2025 conformance to MCS design and installation standards was a requirement to benefit from permitted development rights.  The changes that were made to the PD rights in May 2025 had the effect of removing the requirement that the installation be performed by and MCS installer to MCS standards, other than the noise standard.

But in practice, doesn't the need for Building Regs approval typically force you to comply with MCS? Because MCS as a competent person scheme can self-certify their installations, but that requires the installation follows their standards. If done outside of MCS, then it needs Building Regs sign off and when I spoke to my local Building Control department, they didn't know much about heat pumps and really didn't want to get involved, basically said they'd need to get it signed off by an MCS / heat-pump specialist. 

So while in theory, installations might not need to follow MCS standards to the letter, I suspect in practice given the state of the industry and building control, they may default to following MCS.

 

How exactly?  Building regulations require heating installations to be designed efficiently etc., and the legal requirement is to conform to building regulations not to have them signed off, other than in a limited number of generally safety-related cases SOFAIK, which are either notifiable by a competent person or must actually be signed off.  

I may be wrong but I cant see that this is actually law.  MCS may want to claim it is, but is it?

So, for example, a UVC must be installed by a competent person who can self-certify, or approved by the building inspector.  Similarly any fixed electrics which fall under part P.  Not so, so far as I am aware, anything else involved in a heat pump installation which certainly must conform but I am not aware must, by law, be signed off.  I may be wrong and will admit I am wrong if someone can produce the legal reference.

My experience of building inspectors incidentally is that they are quite reasonable, so even if it does need approval by a building inspector I think its likely you would find one (its a free choice) who will approve based on some sensible calculations/actual installed evidence.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Because MCS as a competent person scheme can self-certify their installations

Is it?   The building regulation specify self certification schemes in schedule 3   I cant find a reference to MCS, the references are to the likes of NAPIT etc.  Here is the most relevant excerpt, but I cant find MCS anywhere in schedule 3.  Again I may be wrong and if someone can produce the legal reference will willingly concede. 

To be clear, Im trying to be precise not critical.  The legislation is complex and there are people who would like you and me to think things are the case that may not be.  Fortunately legislation is published so we can test it!

@jamespa

When solar panel grants and the FIT tariff were tapered off, prices reduced and I am not aware of any evidence that quality of installation reduced.  Now the heat pump industry probably isnt at the same stage yet, but its also clear that this has to be the ultimate goal, its a question of when and how, not if. 

I think that coincided with a plunge in materials costs - both batteries and panels dropped in price significantly. Then from 2021 onwards energy prices increased noticeably. Solar owners can still get 15p per Kw for export even now too. If you can afford the initial cost it's a 'no brainer' and enough people have now installed them to act as force multipliers. 

@jeff

Without drifting into politics, I am not generally comfortable giving a millionaire my taxes to install a heat pump, but am more than happy for my taxes to pay for a heat pump in a home of someone who couldn't afford it. So the net number of heat pump installations increases. 

Right now Kirsty Allsopp is on Twitter/X giving Michael Rosen hell for using a pensioner pass on the Tube. As if removing passes from the wealthier retirees will mean the money is diverted into some other positive cause.  That's a trope - an excuse to remove any state funding from anything. First you limit it to the 'deserving poor', then you obliterate it. 

(PS 'your taxes' don't go into anything like that - I'm not being political or contrary here's the Bank of England's famous essay: 'Money Creation in The Modern Economy'  - it pops a big hole in what I call the handbag theory of economics - "maxed out credit cards" etc., It's a fascinating read - not super geeky I promise 😊) 

The entire reason why public transport is so successful in London is because of its universality - those wealthy people who can afford posh cars still catch tubes because tubes work. Thus investment into expansion is never criticised. Even when Ken Livingston proposed the London Overground all the 'Red Ken' lobbies stayed mystically silent. It becomes a circular endeavour. Invest, expand, make even better, popularity, invest, expand etc.,

This was the stated logic of the state pension too - universality. (Anyone with income is taxed on it.) You can trace directly (I've done it) through public records and documentation that the first criticisms of 'rich people getting state pensions'  or 'intergenerational fairness' came from... wait for it, yes, the private pension industry. 

Anyone 'silly rich' fitting some kind of heat pump system is likely to a) need more than one heat pump; b) fitting ground source that costs eye watering money; c) acting as a show case 'selling' the idea of heat pumps (everyone is a showcase to some extent including you & me). It's a snowball effect.  

Decarbonisation shouldn't be individualised it needs mass adoption, long term planning and solid underpinning. When subsidies are phased out it should be done gradually over years, after benchmarks have been achieved not because of easily contestable, imaginary fiscal theories. 

The refusal to mandate heat pumps in new builds just illustrates how policy is too often run for lobbies not for overall public benefit. Not figuring out properly how to bring renters into decarbonisation by having specific landlord policies for removing gas heating is another example. Decarbonisation will only ever happen by being inclusive - by everyone, rich and poor, being invested in it. 

Heat pump subsidies throughout Europe have all been universal but in the countries I've looked at so far this has been accompanied by strong legislation - no new builds without either district or heat pump heating; strong consumer protection and very clear public messaging and sources of information. Carrot & stick and long term thinking as the Swedish Energy Agency spox explained.

On top of this the EU brought in numerous directives and offered grants for innovation - that's how balcony solar started with an EU grant - so it's been a system of variations on a fairly general but consistent theme.

We don't do that here. 

One big difference between the UK and the rest of Europe is the piling of all the costs of decarbonisation onto consumer energy bills. No other country, even Germany, does it to the extent the UK does. Most countries absorb at least some of these costs into state spending. Some absorb a lot of these costs.

@lucia 

There are many elements of your post above that I would definitely agree with!  What I would not agree with is describing the government as 'stupid'.  For the avoidance of doubt and to avoid party politics I wouldn't describe any recently previous government as 'stupid' either (perhaps with one 47 day exception).  There is a vast difference between stupidity and any one of: differing values, laziness, naivety or maliciousness (several of which I would attribute to various governments in my 65 year lifetime to date!)

The point I am trying to make is that Government is about difficult, sometimes impossible, choices and joining the chorus of 'they are stupid' (which seems to be the only response we now have in the UK to anything that government, of whatever colour, does that we personally disagree with) misses the point that, like it or not, Governments are made up of human beings who have to make difficult choices between frequently completely irreconcilable objectives. 

Furthermore joining that chorus risks being counterproductive if whichever side the accusers are describing as 'stupid' is even slightly more aligned to the values the accusers espouse than are the other realistic alternatives, because it simply supports those whose values dont align.  

I think its fairly clear that the current Government goals in this space are (roughly speaking and in no order)

1. make heating cheaper, particularly for the less well off
2. make heating greener  - don't particularly care whether that is for the less well off or the better off, the objective is to reduce our carbon emissions.  Also dont particularly care whether it is by insulation or heat pumps, its the total impact that matters
3. grow a competent heat pump industry, which ultimately is essential for the above
4. grow a competent insulation retrofit industry (we thought we had one, but apparently not") which ultimately is essential for the above
5. win the next election, otherwise its likely game over for all of the above - because several contenders for government from 2029 have expressly rejected 2, 3  and 4, and some don't care much about (1)

Then of course there is a serious financial constraint.

These are clearly difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile. The government, again of whatever colour, is nevertheless required to come to a decision.  I doubt there is anyone who could come up with a plan that satisfies everybody, or even satisfies all of the above objectives in the way the advocates of them would want.  That's not stupidity, its real-world constraints!

@jamespa

The point I am trying to make is that Government is about difficult, sometimes impossible, choices and joining the chorus of 'they are stupid' (which seems to be the only response we now have in the UK to anything that government, of whatever colour, does that we personally disagree with) misses the point that, like it or not, Governments are made up of human beings who have to make difficult choices between frequently completely irreconcilable objectives. 

I'm neither 'joining a chorus' nor is it (only) about 'personal disagreement'. I'm coming from an informed comparative policy perspective that is actively seeking examples of 'best practice' amongst other things. I've seen what can be done elsewhere - when there's a will and an actually policy direction instead of a 'bit of this and a bit of that' followed by endless flip flopping. I will write much more about this further on in the project. I'll make a noise and link to it. 😁

We are reaping the consequences of an extreme level of state dismantling and privatisation that no other European country followed. In that respect we're more American than European and the blame lies squarely on ALL our political parties - I'm not at all partizan.  

But neither will I go along with politicians of any persuasion because they are 'not the other lot'.  I'm far too independent to let that desperate line influence who I vote for. 

I also don't buy the 'difficult choices' when money gets thrown into weapons and numerous other things without blinking - including wars that Britain pushes but no one voted for.  Never mind the absurdity of wasting money on Carbon Capture and similar other white elephants... 

And the latest excuse: 'the bond markets' 🙀. Oh my days... lol. 

Behave children or the wicked bond markets will get you and turn you all into lettuces. 🫢😂

Please read the Bank of England essay I linked above.

@jamespa I think its fairly clear that the current Government goals in this space are (roughly speaking)...

I don't think it is the 'Government's goals'  so much as 'some of the government' sadly. I think the Executive are all over the place without a clear direction. Hence the flip flopping on policies - including no discernible clear decarbonisation plans beyond PR lines. (I am referring to the Executive here not anyone else and certainly not organisations like NESO or others).  

Don't forget Miliband nearly got moved out of his job. He fought hard and loudly to keep it during the last shake up.  I'm not a fan at all but I have repeatedly heard him spoken of as 'someone who gets things done'. 

@jamespa 

I doubt there is anyone who could come up with a plan that satisfies everybody, or even satisfies all of the above objectives in the way the advocates of them would want.  That's not stupidity, its real-world constraints!

Er... that's kind of obvious - so?

I've worked as a journalist, a researcher and analyst for long enough and high enough to know how these clocks tick... It doesn't stop me being critical far from it - it's my job - my criticism of this latest nonsense is actually because it illustrates the mess at the heart of things. That's not 'real world constraints' it's a total lack of policy focus - like what do they actually stand for? It's hard to discern. You are not going to achieve decarbonisation via a focus group or mimicking. 

In this long run up to the Budget it's been a press round a minute with 'rumours' and nonsense getting floated daily about what will and won't happen. This is beyond irresponsible. 

Broadly speaking European countries have strong regulations, low carbon mandates, phase out dates, clear incentives, strict installer rules and so on. These things don't cost money (apart from subsidies) they come from leadership and direction. We don't have that here... once again I'm not only blaming 'this lot'. It's a sickness in this country which is why the latest lot of charlatans with loud voices and a confident manner can get so far... 

(BTW they'll get sued to Kingdom Come by numerous big player contract holders if they get elected and try and stop 'Net Stupid Zero' ...) 

Ultimately, decarbonisation isn't optional - far from it - the latest data is pretty bad and we need to up our game. And I mean really, really up it. Flip flopping on funding heat pumps is not at all smart. 

@lucia  Again I agree with much of what you say and in particular your last sentence. 

Furthermore I also think that there is a very strong economic argument for decarbonisation.  If you are dependent day to day on shipments of oil from a small number of countries (mostly with despot regimes) you exist at their mercy.  Whereas if most of your energy is locally generated, you have a much greater degree of independence.  Its true that you are still at the mercy of China for some of the underlying means of production, but once you have this you have it for 25 years or more, so there is time to create an alternative plan if they get nasty, not so if you are waiting for the next tanker to arrive.  Frankly I don't think we make enough of this economic security argument, just as we dont make enough of the positive benefits of heat pumps.  And those who advocate 'drill drill drill' in this  country are being doubly irresponsible - if you have a very finite and potentially critical resource that doesn't decay if you just leave it it the ground, then for goodness sake just leave it in the ground until you really need it in a crisis!  

Nevertheless a one dimensional analysis, focussing only on decarbonisation and levying criticisms on that basis, misses the real world context.  I would go so far as to say that the media insistence on doing this is part of the reason why we have the flip flop policies you rightly hate.  The media consistently paints everything as unconditionally 'bad ', which has the effect of angering people and stirring up discontent, encouraging the rise of factions which exploit the anger for their own ends with absolutely no intention of doing anything about the underlying causes.  The UK is not unique in this, nor currently the worst, but for sure its unhealthy and does not serve to educate and inform the public as a more responsible media would.

The irony, which makes it worse, is that the section of the media that broadly aligns with those who support the green agenda, is consistently critical of the politicians who also broadly support the green agenda, as well as those that don't.  Whereas the section of the media aligned to those who do not support the green agenda principally criticises those who do, whilst holding off from criticising those that don't.  Putting it bluntly there is a green-supporting section of the media that is pursuing a path that aids those it opposes more than it aids those with whom it is aligned.  I totally respect the role of the media to hold politicians to account, but that needs to be balanced with realism if what they do is not to be self-defeating. 

Until the voters understand that they cant have what they want, and that they and their politicians have to make difficult choices between competing priorities, we will inevitably have flip-flop politics and risk an extremist reaction to a manufactured discontent.  The media (and therefore journalists) have a vital role in education as well which frankly, at the current time, it is largely IMHO failing.  

I'm slightly nervous of getting out HP installed, even though we should still get the grant as our BUS voucher has been issued, even though I'm convinced the HP will be great.

My fear is that installers will have to scale back their HP businesses and many will probably stop installing them and what this will mean to the maintenance and aftercare support going forward?

Without the grant definitely wouldn't go ahead with our install.

Posted by: @bash

↑

My fear is that installers will have to scale back their HP businesses and many will probably stop installing them and what this will mean to the maintenance and aftercare support going forward?

If the installer is a regular plumber or someone who is genuinely building a business in renewables, building their reputation and doing a good job then they will either still get business or rebalance the proportions of boilers to heat pumps they install, so you need not worry.  If its one of the grant chasers then their plan all along was, I fear, was to go bust when the money got tight, just like solar installers did once the largesse was cut off.