I think this is a really good idea. We’re seeing more and more ECO4 horror stories and every time someone posts their experience it becomes painfully obvious that people don’t know where to turn or what protections they don’t actually have. Having a dedicated thread makes perfect sense… it gives other homeowners a single, easy-to-find place to read, share and compare what’s happening under this scheme.

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, this is the other ECO4 thread worth keeping an eye on:

https://renewableheatinghub.co.uk/forums/renewable-heating-air-source-heap-pumps-ashps/my-misgivings-about-installing-ashp-and-solar-panels-via-the-eco4-scheme

My own view (and I’ve been consistent about this) is that ECO4 has become an unbelievably unethical minefield. The design of the scheme is structurally flawed, the delivery mechanism is broken and the quality issues we’re now seeing were inevitable. But what makes ECO4 especially troubling is that the avenues for redress are even more limited than the already threadbare “able-to-pay” protections under MCS.

At least with a standard MCS installation you have a recognisable installer, a certification body, a consumer code and (in theory) a line of accountability. Under ECO4, you often don’t even know who your installer actually is, let alone how to make a coherent complaint. Work is subcontracted, rebadged, parcelled out to third parties and delivered at a volume-first, quality-last pace that would never pass scrutiny in any other part of this industry.

Add to that the near-total absence of meaningful oversight (whether technical, contractual or regulatory) and you end up with a scheme where vulnerable households are being fitted with systems that are unfit for purpose, oversized, undersized, poorly designed or simply thrown in because “the grant covers it”.

And then, once something goes wrong?

Trying to get anyone to take responsibility is like falling into a bureaucratic black hole. You’re bounced between managing agents, installers, contractors, assessors and ECO administrators, all of whom deny responsibility while pointing at someone else.

ECO4 is not just flawed; it’s dangerous. And the lack of recourse is worse than anything we’re seeing under mainstream MCS installations, and that’s really saying something.

A dedicated thread will help people see patterns, share experiences and hopefully avoid some of the traps others have fallen into. 

I’ll add to the forums with anonymised emails and DMs I’ve received.

@editor have to say I'm disappointed my signposting was edited mars.

You would benefit from the additional traffic and from my experience rhh does not offer the same support re eco4 specific advice regarding regulatory issues.

Ie: trustmark, scheme providers, certification bodies, ukas, retro fit co ordinator, mcs, dro, discussions with mp's, ofgem, desnz & pac. 

I get it you're running a business but this isn't your competition,  this wouldn't cost you and you would have benefitted.

@bart, I don’t promote Facebook groups for many reasons, and the same caution applies to any third-party organisations. We get approached constantly by companies, charities, “support groups” and various entities wanting to piggyback off our community. Once you start allowing external signposting without scrutiny, it opens the door to organisations whose intentions aren’t always as altruistic as they appear.

It’s not about competition... it’s about safeguarding the forums, maintaining trust and ensuring members aren’t quietly funnelled elsewhere into environments we can’t moderate or vouch for. If we’re going to direct homeowners to another platform, it has to be something we’ve looked into properly and are confident won’t expose them to misinformation, commercial agendas or poor advice.

I absolutely respect the work being done by others, but my responsibility here is to protect this community first and foremost. 

Perhaps point the ECO4 etc. sufferers towards RHH instead? Toodles.

@editor understood and appreciated. If you could look into it I think it would be beneficial for you RHH community and in reducing suffering. The biggest issue, as I understand it, is a lack of collective organised action. Conversely the regulators and energy suppliers are very well organised.

@toodles very happy too (I have no vested interest other than to reduce suffering. As already stated I couldn't access the same knowledge base as I've found via the links shared. Eg was news of the recent PAC review shared here?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBbESzzGW8

@hamishhaggis, welcome to the forums. I’m really sorry you’ve found yourself here under these circumstances. What you’ve outlined isn’t a single problem or teething issue… it’s clearly a sustained catalogue of failures across design, installation, commissioning, aftercare and basic conduct, and it’s genuinely shocking that a property has been left in this condition under an ECO4-funded install. Sadly there hundreds more like it!

I’m assuming you’ve already raised this formally with MCS and the scheme administrators, but if so it’s deeply concerning that things have been allowed to drift on for this long without meaningful intervention. Have you received any practical assistance so far in terms of remediation, independent inspection or a pathway to resolution, or has it all been deflected back to installers and subcontractors? I’m assuming its the latter.

What’s particularly troubling here is that so many of these issues are not grey areas or matters of opinion. An unbalanced system for 18 months, incorrect emitters, radiators falling off walls, unresolved leaks, lack of a handover pack, poor sealing leading to damp and rodent ingress, and a home that never exceeded 15C are not subjective performance complaints, they are clear breaches of basic installation standards. The health impacts you describe only underline how serious this has become.

The subcontracting chain you mention is also important. Where ECO4 installs are concerned, accountability doesn’t disappear just because work is passed down the line. Someone signed off the design, someone commissioned the system and someone claimed public funding for it. But with ECO4 being cancelled (and now reinstated till the end if the year) it’s highly unlikely whoever signed off on it will do anything about it. It’s a shocking state of affairs.

If you’re comfortable sharing more detail, it would help the community to understand what stage this is currently at. Has an independent survey or technical audit been carried out? Has the installer been instructed to remediate or has funding for corrective works been discussed? And critically, has anyone formally accepted responsibility for putting this right rather than simply managing complaints?

You’re absolutely right to document this publicly, and you’re not alone here. Hopefully we can at least help you understand what should have happened and what your next realistic steps might be.

Is ECO4 insured by anyone? A warranty of any form?

@editor Thank you for your kind words of support. Sadly, there has been no assistance or response from the relevant governing bodies, and the fitting company has now gone into liquidation.

Fortunately, I recently met Sean, who owns the fantastic company Aventus Eco. He came highly recommended by my neighbour after his team completed an excellent heat pump installation in our village. Sean and his company have kindly agreed to help us, and they are already making a huge difference.

To truly understand the impact he has already had, you only need to look at the positive changes to my heating system, which in turn has had a very noticeable and uplifting effect on my husband’s health.

@hamishhaggis, I’m relieved to hear that you’ve got Sean (@aventus-eco) assisting you. One of the top engineers in the UK. At least your heat pump will get sorted.