@lucia  I have been thinking further about the posts above and am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the section of the media that supports the green agenda will bear as much responsibility, should the green agenda be watered down over the next months and particularly at the next election, as the section of the media that is opposed to the green agenda. 

Why?  Because, just like its opponents, it presents one dimensional arguments to the public representing almost everything that is happening as bad (or, in your words, stupid), whilst failing to acknowledge either the difficulty of government or the conflicting decisions that government has to face.  Thus it seeds discontent with government which plays directly into the hands of those who would describe the green agenda as 'stupid net zero'.

I repeat that I am not downplaying the responsibility of the media to hold government to account, which I hold dearly, but it also, at least in my mind, has a responsibility to educate and to present news in context not just as a series of disasters or mistakes, which clearly it is not. 

The green-supporting media is IMHO failing, by joining the chorus of unrestrained and un-contexed criticism, and in its failure is defeating its own objectives.  Its something of a case of being careful what you wish for. 

I echo those comments from @jamespa

The media seems to report on what is currently happening, particularly when something hasn't worked out as hoped for.

But the route to Net Zero necessarily has forward vision, which sets the pathway.
By not reporting vision, the end-goal seems unattainable.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

@lucia  I have been thinking further about the posts above and am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the section of the media that supports the green agenda will bear as much responsibility, should the green agenda be watered down over the next months and particularly at the next election, as the section of the media that is opposed to the green agenda. 

...

The green-supporting media is IMHO failing, by joining the chorus of unrestrained and un-contexed criticism, and in its failure is defeating its own objectives.  Its something of a case of being careful what you wish for. 

I broadly agree. Also when green includes environment and climate, the inherent tension is often exploited to delay it.

Just to have a power transformation station to bring offshore wind power to Suffolk, 500 documents on various studies were needed. I am not even sure if building started! 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

But the route to Net Zero necessarily has forward vision, which sets the pathway.
By not reporting vision, the end-goal seems unattainable.

Let´s hope pragmatism comes to the fore and implementation of grid scale solutions is swift. But I sense a home PV system is a safe bet given the uncertainty of the path ahead.

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Just to have a power transformation station to bring offshore wind power to Suffolk, 500 documents on various studies were needed.

As I read it, the protests were about the requirement for lots of new 400kV transmission towers to transfer the electricity to London.

Those protests were too wide-ranging due to lack of understanding by the public.

There was no point complaining about a massive upgrade for the transmission  grid running west from Friston.
That's the same GSP which is needed for Sizewell's expansion anyway.

Yes, there are other alternatives.
But the logical science-based objections were over-shadowed by those simply screaming "No More Pylons".

Posted by: @batpred

↑

But I sense a home PV system is a safe bet given the uncertainty of the path ahead.

Definitely.  The issue though is the seasonal one.  In principle I could be self sufficient in energy if I doubled my solar capacity (which I could).  The problem is that I would need to shift energy from summer to winter.  How to do that.  Currently nothing of the scale is available nor even on the horizon so far as I can see.

Keeping the MCS conversation moving, they posted a headline on LinkedIn this weekend claiming that 94% of homeowners with BUS-funded heat pumps are “satisfied” with their installation. They say this is based on their outreach programme, which supposedly contacts every BUS recipient.

After receiving the actual questionnaire they use, I want to share my thoughts on what that number really represents. The “survey” consists mostly of basic administrative questions, installer name, address, commissioning date, grant details, insulation type, whether the property is new build, etc. The only question that contributes to the 94% figure is: “Overall, are you happy with your installation?”

That’s it.

There is no question about winter performance, running costs, comfort levels, etc. Nothing that would tell you whether the system actually performs.

Most BUS installs happen in mild weather, where any heat pump (even a poorly designed one) will appear to “work”. If you ask someone in April whether they’re happy with a new system that hasn’t been tested by winter temperatures, of course they’ll say yes. It would take a catastrophic installation for someone to tick “no” at that stage.

But the failures we see on this forum only come to light months later: incorrect sizing, poor SCOPs, cold rooms, high bills, missing documentation and unresolved complaints.

None of that is captured in this survey, and none of it affects the 94% statistic.

So when MCS publishes that number, it’s not measuring heat pump quality IMO. It’s measuring whether the installer avoided breaking anything that

week.

This is why so many homeowners on this forum tell a very different story from the MCS narrative. Thoughts as always. Agree/disagree.

Posted by: @editor

↑

This is why so many homeowners on this forum tell a very different story from the MCS narrative.

Thoughts as always. Agree/disagree.

 

Definite dont know from me as I have no source at all of unbiassed information. 

That said "Overall, are you happy with your installation?” feels like a reasonable question to judge what people think without pre judging individual motives, provided they have experienced at least one winter at the time its asked (so timing is everything)

Does the published data reveal when the survey is sent out relative to the installation date?  I dont remember getting mine (you say they claim to ask every recipient of the BUS grant) and my installation is now exactly 1 year old - so a good time to ask, actually. 

If the questions are asked just a few weeks after the install then I would agree that the answer to this very general question is valueless.  This is neither enough time to understand the actual performance through a winter nor enough time to get used to the system and deal with teething issues.

Im not sure 94% is something to boast about, that still leaves ~6000 people that arent happy!

@editor This is why we seasonal commission, BTW seasonal commissioning is very common on commercial contacts for low temperature heating systems and often they must be commissioned 4 times in 1 year and should be included in the cost when tendering. We have re-commissioned or at least checked without being prompted to every domestic ASHP installation we installed between April and October, some need 1hr and some need 4hrs on the 2nd visit.

I am not sure MCS are ever going to be the full policing system for this industry, as is the same for Gas safe with combi's or competent persons schemes for any heating systems, all of this side of the industry has the same bad practices with installations or service and are not policed very well by their relevant bodies, I am only pointing this out as none of this is new or a shock to me just another compliance that people will find a way around, complete the minimum, job and knock, take the money.  

If you take the commercial example above there is no chance for any contactor / company / installer to get away with a bad design commercially if the contract is set up this way as it will get noticed the heating system is not right within that 1 year cycle and you don't get paid all of the money until you finish that last commissioning, be it only a small sum held it is normally enough to want to claim it. This may be where our company AAC, heatgeek's, and other companies like ours who cover and support their warranties / guarantee's by placing this in writing then into practice have it covered and all customers should use companies like ours then you don't need bodies to follow up with disciplinary actions?

I assume what this means is all of the companies that install poor systems are in breach of their contract and until someone gets prosecuted under the consumers rights then it will continue? Every grant installed system has a full legal contract, every commercial contact is held up in commercial law, I assume end user public consumer law works something like this, customers could even use a credit card to get the big company support as we are often told by our banks, Visa would kick a little companies ASK and help the customer with their consumer rights. 

If any of the compliance body organisations had the power to police every install and say get rid of bad practices and licences I think the whole heating industry would be 30% smaller and double the price for everything because it would be very specialist "which I would love BTW, so I am not defending bad practice, I fix the bad jobs".        

However, there is a down side to this level of security knowing you will get a good job, it can cost more, often you get what you pay for and not always but commercial contacts are often compared like for like, apples for apples. I think all ASHP instillations installed in April - End September should all be costed to cover 2 commissioning days to make sure the systems are working as efficiently as they can but knowing that many systems are just powered on, set to fixed flow and left with a hand touch on the rad then there is no point having a second visit as the 1st was a waste of time. Would you as a customer employ us for an additional £300 if it covered a 2nd commissioning but also left you knowing we were coming back half year later just to make sure the system is perfect? This £300 is not extra BYW it just the correct price and all the other companies that did not charge it cut the cost by cutting this task but it looks like you have to pay more for us, your just getting more so it the same but a better service? Perhaps!

I really feel for the customers that didn't go for the cheapest, were convinced by the company that had the shiny website, or misplaced their faith in the famous brand thinking it means quality when it actually means no choice no options no design flexibility no second commissioning, as you state a customer cannot be sure it works until they have used it in a colder climate and thats where the 2nd commission come in. 

I wanted to actually try to answer your question and as you can see I have a lot to say on the subject of systems not working but I think its a lot more than just MCS thats wrong with the compliance side although they could do better, then there would be more companies like us and slightly less bad installs maybe. 

It may be of interest to you to point out it is not just MCS but we had an inspection and audit by Ofgem as well, so we are getting checked a lot, their only comment after a 3 week audit was that every part of the project was we had failed to complete the MCS certificate correctly as our certificate on this particular project said the PUZ-WM85 Ecodan provides 9.12kW at design and we should change the information on the cert to reflect the true capacity of the ASHP which is clearly acoding to the ASHP badge on the unit 8.5kW. Now, my only comment here is at least they sent someone to physically check on us and go to the property be it clearly the inspector was less qualified and less experienced than us as they were completely wrong, so my point here is they are only as good as who they send, here you have the admin checking the 35yr experienced chief engineers quality of work (or form filling in this case).

To comply, I changed the cert so it is now incorrectly stating the power output at 8.5kW and sent a lengthy email back to them, MCS and the client explaining to the client that Ofgem are wrong but as they are the compliance body for the grant I will be compliant. I asked MCS to also comment as they ask for the manufacturers design output capacity and not the badge label. I assured our client their system according to Mitsubishi does produce 9.12kW at their design and that the certificate just says what Ofgem wants it to say. I am waiting for ofgem or MCS to respond which is correct I am hoping I am as there is a lot of certs out there that are very wrong. My point here is it is all of them, every compliance body, every membership and every rule seems to be opinions and interpretation rather than clear, no wonder many heating engineers avoid this.  

@jamespa Only way to police this is to send a fully qualified engineer that is experienced in design and installation to every job that has anything said about it and no one is going to pay for that.

I have had customers say it does not work and it does they just cant feel the radiator get hot but the the whole house is 23C and I have had customers say it works amazing and it was not, I found ways to make it go from 2.8 to 3.9 SCOP but they had no idea about the savings they were just warm, so what question can we ask a customer that gives the right info? This would lead to fixed flow fixed heat just to make rads hot to get a question answered yes it works great.

Also some customers can get concerned that their electrical bill went up from £600 to £1,500 even though their gas bill reduce by £1,000 a net saving of £100 but they just cant get passed the electric went right up. This sometimes takes a couple of conversations until it sinks in, what if they report it costs a fortune to run?

Or, monitor every single heat pump for performance I am sure someone has mentioned this before, get the real data and any system not maintaining say 20 Deg C at 300% efficiency, check with the customer what they are using it for and if its an issue for them it may be they are running it at 26C and then thats fine but otherwise it needs something.  

@ashp-bobba 

I have sympathy.  People have a tendency to complain rather than attempt to understand.  Also some people (including some here) seem to prefer to complain rather than do obvious things to fix.   

Can I point the discussion to a transcript of Oral Evidence to the Commons Select Committee on ESNZ on 31st January 2025.

One of the three witnesses is Dr Richard Hauxwell-Baldwin, Research and Campaigns Manager at MCS.

Q495 is a question to him by Simon Bones MP, to which part of the response is:

The answer doesn't make it clear whether those phone calls have already been happening, or are they part of a 'revamp' of the MCS Scheme which he's just told the Committee will happening in Summer '25.

But it's of note that the follow-up survey (written or verbal) is a requirement placed on MCS by Ofgem.
That means it should be possible to request a copy of that obligation.