Posted by: @bart

↑

I felt I had to weigh in on this lovely exchange between you both.

The underlying issues are abundantly apparent and worthy of note.

After over 19 months my install continues to be informed by this shitshow. 

Policy makers could learn a lot from the systems they claim to advocate.  

To date the desperate need for change has resulted in a nonsense of immediacy.

After the £5 billion abject and systemic failure of ECO4, £17 billion for WHG will only add to the cowboys after the u bend.

This reflex response is fundamentally inefficient. Isn't meaningful debate the work of government?

The framing of "net-zero" policies as too expensive and harmful, despite public support for climate initiatives is a result of questionable leadership.

Is this not the work of journalists?

Well done @editor 

If you read the consultation recently launched by the Government you will see that Policy makers have recognised the issues and are proposing fundamentally to change how consumer protection works in the industry.  Should this have happened earlier, well of course it should.  Why didn't it? We dont know - but your 'preferred 'answer probably depends on your politics.

My point is that getting to the point where it will make a difference is inevitably a long process, sufficiently long that it wont complete in practice before we potentially have another change of Government which could well undo it.  Therefore it is foolish to rely on it and journalism wont speed it up.

Campaigning for what is already substantially underway arms those who would block it without helping those who would benefit from it.

@jamespa, I think your three questions are useful and they would make an excellent consumer checklist; and my objection is not to educating homeowners.

The finance comparison illustrates the difference really imo. Finance is hardly virtuous, but within its regulated perimeter it has a recognisable architecture with a statutory regulator, formal complaint requirements, a free independent ombudsman capable of requiring redress and a compensation scheme when an authorised firm fails.

None of those mechanisms is perfect, but there is at least supposed to be a front door.

A homeowner with a failed heat pump installation can be passed between the installer, manufacturer, MCS, consumer code, insurer, warranty provider and grant administrator. Every organisation was involved when the system was sold and certified. When the house is cold, each can explain with remarkable precision why the decisive part belongs elsewhere.

Crooks and incompetents will never disappear and consumer protection is not expected to abolish imperfect humans, but it should make poor work harder to sell, detect it sooner and prevent the entire cost of failure landing on the person least qualified to identify it.

Posted by: @editor

↑

The finance comparison illustrates the difference really imo. Finance is hardly virtuous, but within its regulated perimeter it has a recognisable architecture with a statutory regulator, formal complaint requirements, a free independent ombudsman capable of requiring redress and a compensation scheme when an authorised firm fails.

Well yes, except that as we see heat pump insurance, a product of the finance industry not the heat pump industry, doesn't really work (unless the householder is very persistent) notwithstanding the finance industry regulator.

Posted by: @editor

↑

A homeowner with a failed heat pump installation can be passed between the installer, manufacturer, MCS, consumer code, insurer, warranty provider and grant administrator.

I agree, and so apparently do the current policy makers, which is why I have responded positively to the consultation recently launched by the Government wherein a complete re-work of the consumer protection landscape is being proposed!

I think that our difference probably boils down to this.  You are, I think, arguing for

(a) something that is already underway - better consumer protection and

(b) something that is never, ever, going to happen - a construction industry without scammers

I would perhaps prefer that attention is drawn strongly and repeatedly to the fact that change in the consumer protection is already underway, give the change strong support (whilst of course pointing out any weaknesses/possible improvements), and assist customers in the mean time (whilst the necessary processes to change the consumer protection landscape work their way through to the coal face).  I havent read the book, only the title, perhaps thats what it does.

@jamespa as you rightly say they have indeed, below are some of the changes:

DESNZ has publicly stated that, pending longer-term reform, it has already strengthened direct oversight of the existing architecture.

• A new DESNZ–TrustMark Memorandum of Understanding.
• Regular formal DESNZ engagement with Certification Bodies.
• A DESNZ observer role on the TrustMark Board.
• Direct DESNZ/TrustMark work connected with ECO4/GBIS audit activity.
• A DESNZ–MCS Memorandum of Understanding.
• A DESNZ observer role on the MCS Service Company Board.
• Close Government monitoring of the redeveloped MCS scheme.
• Centralised complaints arrangements and increased use of data analytics for installer/assurance oversight.

Unfortunately in my (and many others experience) it has been very much more of the same nonsense output from these now collaborative efforts subsequent to these changes having been implemented.

But as you say it is still early days.

If you wanted more info as to how we've got to where we currently are could I recommend the following:

ECO4 Government Response (2022) —

Primary historical source for Government's policy objectives, deliberate use of PAS/TrustMark/MCS, stakeholder concerns about assurance capacity, and Government's original governance approach.

Design of ECO4 consultation / Government policy — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/design-of-the-energy-company-obligation-eco4-2022-2026
Original policy context for ECO4's objectives and architecture.

Warm Homes Plan (January 2026) — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/warm-homes-plan/warm-homes-plan-html
Confirms fundamental oversight reform, DESNZ–TrustMark and DESNZ–MCS MOUs, Board observer roles, Certification Body engagement and current Government oversight approach.

Reforming Consumer Protection for Home Upgrade Schemes (June 2026) — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-consumer-protection-for-home-upgrade-schemes
Current DESNZ consultation expressly identifying weaknesses/systemic failures, fragmented oversight, unclear accountability, integrated oversight and Government-owned data proposals.

Detailed consumer-protection reform consultation — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-consumer-protection-for-home-upgrade-schemes/reforming-consumer-protection-for-home-upgrade-schemes-consultation-document-accessible-webpage
Detailed source for reform objectives, accountability/data proposals, systemic-risk identification and closer Government control.

DESNZ Annual Report and Accounts 2025–26 — Performance Report — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/desnz-annual-report-and-accounts-2025-to-2026/performance-report
Records departmental governance/risk/assurance work, audit/remediation, Find & Fix, dedicated programme boards, cross-scheme root-cause analysis and policy-owner accountability language.

ECO4 extension Government Response — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/extending-the-eco4-end-date/outcome/extending-the-eco4-end-date-government-response-html
Confirms extension to 31 December 2026 partly to allow remediation of non-compliant installations and strengthened audits/independent inspections/supplier processes.

ECO4 extension statutory Explanatory Memorandum — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2026/9780348278750/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780348278750_en_001.pdf
Statutory explanatory material confirming remediation rationale and extended Ofgem compliance determination timetable.

Solid Wall Insulation Statistical Audit Results — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/solid-wall-insulation-installed-under-eco4-and-gbis-statistical-audit-results/solid-wall-insulation-installed-under-eco4-and-gbis-statistical-audit-results
Evidence of TrustMark intelligence reaching DESNZ, Ofgem audits commissioned on DESNZ's behalf and significant EWI/IWI technical non-compliance findings.

Government action on poor-quality insulation — https://www.gov.uk/government/news/action-taken-to-protect-households-with-poor-quality-insulation
Evidence of direct Government intervention after assurance intelligence identified widespread SWI problems.

Ofgem ECO4 Scores — https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/guidance/eco4-scores
Confirms ECO4 scoring relationship to annual bill savings and HHCRO contribution.

ECO 2022–2026 Innovation Guidance — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-company-obligation-2022-2026-innovation-guidance/eco-2022-to-2026-guidance-on-applying-for-demonstration-actions-innovation-score-uplifts-and-in-situ-performance
Government source for ECO4 objectives, fuel poverty, carbon reduction and Annual Bill Savings architecture.

ECO4/GBIS Mid-Scheme Changes consultation — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme-mid-scheme-changes/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme-mid-scheme-changes-consultation
Government material describing household bill-reduction outcomes and mid-scheme policy context.

ECO4/GBIS Mid-Scheme Government Response — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme-mid-scheme-changes/outcome/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme-mid-scheme-changes-government-response
Relevant to continued reliance on TrustMark/PAS, Ofgem rejection clarification and the policy response to quality issues.

ECO4/GBIS Final Stage Impact Assessment — https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme-mid-scheme-changes/outcome/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme-mid-scheme-changes-final-stage-impact-assessment
Policy/value source for market failures, fuel poverty, energy security and carbon-reduction objectives.

Fuel Poverty Strategy — Technical Annex — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fuel-poverty-strategy-for-england/fuel-poverty-strategy-for-england-technical-annex
Wider Government methodology demonstrating societal value-for-money analysis including carbon, health and comfort benefits.

NAO — Energy efficiency installations under ECO — https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/energy-efficiency-installations-under-the-energy-company-obligation/
Independent public audit findings on failures in design, assurance, consumer protection, information and oversight.

Public Accounts Committee report (January 2026) — https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/51210/documents/284164/default/
Parliamentary findings on fragmented oversight, risk escalation, consumer protection and DESNZ accountability.

Treasury Minute — Government response to PAC (April 2026) — https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69cd35d6837d4b59e502d0d3/E03580127_CP_1522_Treasury_Minutes_62-67_web.pdf
Critical source recording Government agreement/implementation of central PAC recommendations, risk-governance arrangements, Parliamentary reporting, remediation and consumer-protection reform.

DESNZ senior-official meetings data (Oct–Dec 2025) — https://www.gov.uk/csv-preview/69bbe0ddf7b1c24d8e23ce31/DESNZ_Senior_Official_Meetings__October_to_December_2025.csv
Operational transparency source evidencing DESNZ engagement with TrustMark, MCS, UKAS, IAA and certification bodies, including CoL discussion and TrustMark Board meeting.

PAC follow-up / DESNZ evidence (December 2025) — https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/50633/documents/277523/default/
Relevant to historic TrustMark/DESNZ meetings, information flows and DESNZ engagement with constituent ECO4 cases.

Posted by: @bart

↑

DESNZ has publicly stated that, pending longer-term reform, it has already strengthened direct oversight of the existing architecture....

Unfortunately in my (and many others experience) it has been very much more of the same nonsense output from these now collaborative efforts subsequent to these changes having been implemented.

But as you say it is still early days.

Its clear that 'strengthening oversight 'is a stopgap measure.  Probably more a case of (a) being seen to be doing something  and (b) an opportunity to collect intelligence that will inform the long term measures, than actually in itself making much of a difference.  

Its early days and the Government consultation to which I refer  is much more radical but will take a fair time to implement, or indeed may never be fully implemented if the next government is hostile to either regulation and/or renewables.  Its worth both a read and commenting on it as its the prime opportunity we are likely to get to have any influence.  

Thanks for the long list of reading material, a minority of which I have already read or skipped through but most of which I have not read.

I am more interested in why we are where we are than how we got here.  What, for example, are the underlying policy motives, skills gaps, misunderstandings or other factors that result in the landscape we see.  Is it a result of deliberate policy choices or poor implementation of those policies.  If its the former, why were those policy choices made, what was the thought process behind them/argument for them?.  If it is the latter, why were the policies poorly implemented and is there anything that a government with the will to do something can do about it. 

In this context its worth noting that out of 80 years since the second world war, the government in power, chosen by the people, has been ideologically disposed against both regulation and expenditure by government for 52 of those years,  I don't know if that has been a contributory factor, but its at least plausible that it may be.  

@bart thank you for weighing in, and I am sorry that after 19 months your installation is still being shaped by the very shitshow we are discussing. 

I think policymakers could indeed learn something from the technology they advocate. A good heat pump system depends upon careful design, proportionate output, continuous feedback and adjustment. Policy is too often operated like an oversized boiler with maximum output, poor control, frantic cycling and surprise at the resulting waste.

(between calls)

@jamespa agreed. Look at FCA reform.

My take: we have to embrace the fact that this industry has relied upon grant schemes in order to develop and realise/address those repercussions.

The limitations of PAS/Trustmark issues were highlighted by the industry itself in 2022 and yet gov.uk had other ideas...

For the industry (as someone who is a victim of the grant scheme) I'd simply argue that the perceived distance from the consumer has created many of the outcomes we are now experiencing.

(I do get it, I didn't pay, but that doesn't mean I don't love the idea/understand/appreciate the kit as much someone who did pay)

Bottom line: Public money should be spent more frugally not less