MCS has long been criticised for poor complaint handling and a lack of transparency, and yet, despite those issues, government has now given them total control over all grant-backed installations. I’m flabbergasted. 

Around 70% of consultation respondents said that a single-scheme monopoly would damage quality and accountability. DESNZ ignored that.

So where does this leave homeowners?

• Still dealing with installations that don’t perform as promised.
• Still fighting endless complaint loops.
• Still without a clear, independent body to turn to when things go wrong.

The government claims this move will “improve consistency”, but in practice it removes competition, and without competition, there’s no incentive for MCS to raise standards or improve the way they protect consumers. The competition in this case is Flexi-orb that has the same UKAS accreditation as MCS. 

For those of us who’ve seen the consequences of poor installations firsthand, this is incredibly disappointing. It’s a missed opportunity for genuine reform IMO and a reminder that homeowners need to remain cautious and continue doing their own due diligence.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

"However, to mitigate the potential risks we are taking steps to increase oversight of MCS. This includes placing a DESNZ observer on the MCS Service Company decision-making board and putting in place a memorandum of understanding between the department and MCS. The MCS Consumer Protection Oversight Panel will also publish an annual report on their consumer protection performance. We will keep this arrangement under review, and consider if further measures are needed to ensure adequate oversight."

It’s the perfect strategic partnership between government and its favourite certification charity. Somewhere in Whitehall, a cork just popped and Ian Rippin’s toasting to another decade of unaccountability.

Posted by: @editor

↑

It’s the perfect strategic partnership between government and its favourite certification charity. Somewhere in Whitehall, a cork just popped and Ian Rippin’s toasting to another decade of unaccountability.

I do hear this and am as angry as you, but perhaps we should try to understand the motivation and also unpack it if we are to move forward.  There is no advantage to Government in having a poor scheme and this one has had the approvals of governments of different flavours so its not obviously party political. Its easy to blame 'corruption' but honestly I doubt it.

Its, at least in some respects, not unprecedented either.  The IET, also an independent charity, has sole responsibility for the electrical regulations to which all electrical installations in this country must conform.  For full disclosure I should state that I'm a member, albeit one with absolutely no role in running it.  So far as I am aware it does a pretty excellent job.  There are differences, whilst the IET is responsible for defining the regulations, there is no obligation to be a member of it to apply them, there are several other bodies of which electricians can be members which appear to have some overlap with bodies that provide a broadly similar role in the heat pump business (NAPIT for example).

I can see that there is an argument for one and only one set of standards in any particular area, to which all installations must conform.  In fact the idea of competing standards is almost an oxymoron.  These should IMHO, specify the what not the how, ie they should say what standards the installation must meet (and possibly how those may be demonstrated/tested) not how it should meet them.  If we accept this (and I think I do) then making a body, whether it is MCS or another, solely responsible for standards is logical.

Setting standards is of course different from enforcing them, which is also different again from consumer protection.  SOFAIK the IET has no role in enforcing the standards it sets, thats the role of the building inspector and/or the accreditation bodies such as NAPIT.  Perhaps our expectations here are wrong?

The other thing to factor in is that standards are often minimum standards, setting a baseline above which the best may well rise.  Competition is of course important here, but it's not competition of standards it's competition of providers.

I am not defending the Government decision, rather Im trying to understand both it and the parallels (or not) with other sectors.  Why?  because by doing so it might be possible to mount a more convincing argument when the promised review of consumer protection (which is the real issue that we are complaining about) in the sector takes place. 

Maybe the people who run flexi-orb have a view, or even an analysis, to contribute?

Perhaps a way through is to encourage the public to ask for written performance guarantees.  Heat geek, it seems, provide this (although I don't know how it's measured, does anyone else?  Should they? Is this better than doing what we are currently doing which is to advise them to question the design details?  I don't know!

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Maybe the people who run flexi-orb have a view, or even an analysis, to contribute?

Perhaps a way through is to encourage the public to ask for written performance guarantees.  Heat geek, it seems, provide this (although I don't know how it's measured, does anyone else?  Should they? Is this better than doing what we are currently doing which is to advise them to question the design details?  I don't know!

@mark-n, if Flexi-orb would like to respond and offer a view here on the forums, please feel free to do so.

@jamespa, I agree that understanding why this has happened is important, but the problem here isn’t the principle of having one set of standards; it’s who’s been entrusted to uphold them and how catastrophically they’ve failed to do so.

MCS isn’t the IET. The IET doesn’t regulate commercial access to funding or decide who can and can’t participate in an industry worth hundreds of millions in public money. That’s the key distinction for me.

At the end of the day, we’re seeing homeowners trapped in endless complaints and systems performing well below acceptable efficiency. When the sole certifying body has presided over years (over a decade now) of declining quality and systemic failure, the answer cannot possibly be to remove all competition and accountability.

A single standard, yes. A single enforcer with a monopoly on access to taxpayer funds, absolutely not. The IET example works because it separates the standard from the market mechanism. MCS now controls both. It essentially writes the rulebook, enforces it and collects the fees. That’s a conflict of interest on every level. I just don't get it.

And as for government motivation, I think it’s more inertia than conspiracy... maybe I'm being too kind! It’s easier to hand everything to the existing body than to face the embarrassment of admitting the system has failed. But for homeowners, who are the ones paying the price, this decision entrenches the very dysfunction that’s driving people away from low-carbon heating in the first place.

I agree that the consumer protection review will be the next key moment. But unless competition (real, structural competition) is introduced, that review will be nothing more than another consultation designed to placate critics while the monopoly rolls on. I don't have the MCS have the competence to sort this out. But let's see what transpires.

Posted by: @editor

↑

MCS isn’t the IET. The IET doesn’t regulate commercial access to funding or decide who can and can’t participate in an industry worth hundreds of millions in public money. That’s the key distinction for me.

At the end of the day, we’re seeing homeowners trapped in endless complaints and systems performing well below acceptable efficiency. When the sole certifying body has presided over years (over a decade now) of declining quality and systemic failure, the answer cannot possibly be to remove all competition and accountability.

A single standard, yes. A single enforcer with a monopoly on access to taxpayer funds, absolutely not. The IET example works because it separates the standard from the market mechanism. MCS now controls both. It essentially writes the rulebook, enforces it and collects the fees. That’s a conflict of interest on every level. I just don't get it.

I think I would agree with that analysis, in essence one body controls too much of the food chain.  Perhaps we should develop this argument and unpack the elements.  Other bodies do seem to have a role when it comes to heat pumps, but its currently obscure who is responsible for enforcement of the customer experience (is anybody).  Perhaps one of our installers could explain the relationships between MCS and the various other bodies?

I think there may also be a somewhat separate question of competence.  Recent evidence suggests that MCS may not be particularly competent even at writing standards.  MCS020(a) when first issued had a fundamental arithmetic error (which was corrected following a comment from me, although I'm not taking credit it may be that others made a similar comment) and still is ambiguous as regards solid barriers, which is key to its whole purpose.  Over the past 2 - 3 years I have made several comments to them regarding lack of precision, some of which have in fairness been taken on board and some of which are outstanding.  There is no excuse for poorly drafted standards which should be rigorously reviewed before publication.  I haven't conducted a thorough analysis of 3005-I and 3005-d, so it maybe that the problem is limited to MCS020.

It would be really good to understand this better and in particular to hear from flexi-orb and from some better installers.  We need to be prepared for the next stage.

@editor

There’s a growing concern in the industry and among homeowners about the current approach to certifying heat pump installations. MCS is often seen as the gatekeeper for standards in the renewables sector. However, it’s important to recognise that MCS doesn’t set the underlying technical standards — it applies and enforces them through its own certification framework. It uses existing British and international standards, but it also controls access to funding and market participation, which places a huge amount of responsibility on a single organisation.

By contrast, the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Scheme has been designed by industry, for industry, through a Code of Practice developed collaboratively across the sector. It aims to raise competence requirements beyond current practice, ensuring high-quality installations with SCOP values above 3.5. Like MCS, Flexi-Orb follows recognised national and international BS EN standards, but it also adds an extra layer of assurance through industry-led governance and competence assessment.

This approach seeks to prevent the very issues we see with MCS: underperforming systems, inconsistent installation quality, and homeowners paying the price for systemic failures. Flexi-Orb isn’t just about standards — it’s about ensuring real-world performance and accountability.

The question now is: what actions should those affected the most — homeowners and taxpayers — take? Some potential steps include:

• Demand transparency about who certifies installations and how competence is measured.
• Ask for evidence of SCOP performance and long-term efficiency guarantees before installation.
• Engage with consultations or industry forums to advocate for independent oversight and accountability.
• Consider schemes like Flexi-Orb that have built-in industry governance and higher competence standards.

At the end of the day, a single standard is fine. A single enforcer with a monopoly over public funding is not. The homeowners paying the price deserve better.

@mark-n, purely for transparency, are you the Mark Nelson who is part of Flexi-orb’s exec team?

Your response is welcome either way, but I just want to make it clear to everyone the perspective you’re responding from.

Oh, and given this is your first post, welcome to the forum.

Posted by: @mark-n

↑

This approach seeks to prevent the very issues we see with MCS: underperforming systems, inconsistent installation quality, and homeowners paying the price for systemic failures. Flexi-Orb isn’t just about standards — it’s about ensuring real-world performance and accountability.

OK so if that is the case (and presuming you are somehow linked to flexi-orb), is the Government potentially right to have one body define standards (or how to apply standards that already exist to a particular sector) provided it allows competition for codes of practice etc?  This could be consistent with grant aided schemes requiring that the installation is to MCS standards provided that MCS standards themself don't actually mandate the use of an MCS registered installer. 

Its relevant to note that the most recent change to PD rules did exactly that.  PD rules formerly specified that, to qualify, installations must be to 'MCS Planning Standards or equivalent standards' and 'MCS Planning Standards' were defined as a particular issue of MCS020.  MCS020 specified a noise standard and also specified that, to conform the installation must be done by an MCS installer, thus effectively creating a closed shop for installations under PD.

In May 2025 the PD rules were amended to remove 'or equivalent standards', seemingly tightening the MCS grip.  However in fact it loosened the MCS grip and removed the closed shop because the definition of 'MCS Planning Standards' in the legislation was changed from a particular issue of MCS020 to a particular issue of MCS020(a), and MCS020(a) contains only a noise standard and no requirement that the installation be done by an MCS registered installer.

Is it possible that the Government intent is to do the same for grants as it has done for the PD rules, thus retaining MCS as the sole definer of standards, but not as the sole arbiter of installation quality/installer suitability?  If so then there may yet be logic in the direction of travel.

@jamespa

Yes, I am linked to Flexi-Orb, so I can provide some context from experience in industry-led scheme development.

@majordennisbloodnok 

The Government DESNZ response to the Boiler Upgrade Scheme Certification Requirements consultation has been published.

The MCS will retain their monopoly position despite 3/4 of the consultation respondents disagreeing with question 5: the proposal to mandate MCS as the sole certification scheme.

Only 248 responses to this question - the pivotal one in the 'consultation' - evidently this consultation was not widely known about and/or was a sham with a pre-determined outcome from the start.