Posted by: @heacol

↑

@jamespa @editor can you help with some statistics and examples from this platform? It does appear to be illegal and against competition rules. It also appears that DESNEZ consulted with MCS prior to the consultation, as they are mentioned as the preferred option. Again, it is highly illegal for a government department to collude with a private entity for the financial gain of that entity whilst excluding competing organisations with the same certifications and qualifications. Especially as all government legislation for the renewable industry has stated "MCS or another certifying body"

Good point. I wonder if anyone here knows someone in the Competition Commission....

I believe that is part of the problem. Who is regulating the MCS?

Part of government until 2018, set a 'gold' standard and little more since 2019 (even on its own site) in a rapidly changing market with cutting edge technology?

Thankfully this new MCS venture (above) was explained to me by a front line call handler. In summary: we failed to appropriately regulate under the current system so we're going to get more power to solve that problem....(about right in gov.uk.)

After 6 months complaints (concerning issues too serious even to mention here) with little help from MCS I can say, against all odds, they have managed to tarnish that gold.

Fortunately, I've discovered MCS is irrelevant under ECO4. (We're poor so don't need a gold standard, we'd only eat it given the rising cost of living).

Unfortunately though it seems we're reliant on Trustmark's application of MCS standards.

Coincidentally both the CEO of Trustmark (Simon Ayers) and the CEO of MCS (Ian Rippin) were the only 2 Company Directors of Low Carbon Technologies Model Ltd which dissolved 9 July 2024. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13893400/officers Small world eh?

For my part I'm giving NAPIT and IAA until September before I'll escalate.

If you're writing to your MP I'd wait until summer recess is over as they'll be on hollybobs  

Quite honestly, the MCS situation is getting out of hand. I’m working on a plan to raise more consumer awareness around unvalidated MCS claims.

Posted by: @editor

↑

Quite honestly, the MCS situation is getting out of hand. I’m working on a plan to raise more consumer awareness around unvalidated MCS claims.

Is there any value in some sort of petition from members of this forum.  They won't be expecting one (because it's not the sort of thing people do petitions over) so it might just get noticed particularly if it included a cross section of householders, installers and others. 

MCS is clearly letting the industry and the climate down big time

@jamespa Good idea, it will have to be fast, I can get it directly into DESNEZ where it will be heard. I will send a message to @editor now.

@bart Stinks of corruption.

@heacol I think I've probably said too much with investigations outstanding...Suffice it to say I'll sign that petition.

In the interim I finally found the MCS SCOP performance requirement in MCS007 as below:

ie. Its based on output from MCS SCOP calculator (mine apparently said 3.8 when its 2.3). Compliant minimum is 2.8 and MCS claim no responsibility for their predictions. Hopefully its input error.

Also PAS2035 stipulates MCS N1&N2 which I can't find. Anyone?

This might be useful for @bart

From

MCSCERTIFIED.COM "https://mcscertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Heat-Pump-Guide.pdf"

"Warning: It is vital that the system does not cycle on and off repeatedly as this will lead to excessive wear on the components, poor comfort control and reduced system efficiency." 

Regarding the requirement for the SCOP to be a minimum of 2.8, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1026446/clean-heat-grant-government-response.pdf

"Government response

We will require that all heat pumps have a minimum SCOP rating of 2.8, an increase from the minimum SCOP rating of 2.5 on the domestic RHI. The system efficiency will be evidenced through the MCS certificate submitted by the installer at the point of voucher redemption. There will be no ongoing obligation on customers or installers to report in-situ system performance."

So it seems the regulations of a SCOP of 2.8 is just via the MCS calculation on the certificate and not actual system performance.

"PAS2035 stipulates MCS N1&N2"

N1 and N2 are references within the document, see normative references on page 10. The bibliography on page 54 says:

[1] GREAT BRITAIN. Climate Change Act 2008. London: The Stationery Office.

[2] HM GOVERNMENT. Net zero strategy: Build back greener. London: BEIS, 2021. 

@robs ASHP Closure of doc unknown's thank you

And manufacturer defines excessive cycling as less than 15-20min cycles.

I've already included the "reasonable skill and care" requirement as a reason for having selected the 5KW system as it definitely wouldn't require a volumiser and meets my heat loss.

Either way you'd hope that doubling my volume and locating half outside of the heated envelope of the house like this without any consultation is unreasonable.

P.S. the tanks themselves are held in place to the woodern struts (both of which have been split) with the jubilee clip alone and pipework is balanced on 30cm of insulation unsupported from the eaves.

All smacks of poor design for which the retrofit co-ordinator/designer has ultimate responsibility who's role is defined by PAS2035 and scheme provider code of practice. In my case I had no communication with one at all.

NB. Under current plans MCS won't be requiring scheme provider membership, lets hope they've developed a more robust requirement for adequate assessment and design and its appreciated that every document I received was incorrectly populated.

@bart That is terrible and a clear breach of the building regulations, and therefore a breach of the law. The CPS is neglecting its duty to you as a member of the public if they have accepted it.

@heacol thanks for confirming we can only hope NAPIT agree. 

That climate needs for such fantastic technology could be so completely subverted for profit and this be sanctioned by government is simply reprehensible. Considering the systemic failings I've experienced I thought I'd gen up on Fraud. 

and additional CPS advice https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006

Failing to disclose information (Section 3) in my case MCS, Scheme provider guidelines appear to have been ignored (we didn't receive ANY documentation prior to work start. The installer claiming as we weren't the client-due to ECO4 funding all work would be overseen by the energy provider who never materialised)

False representation (Section 2) every documented error appears to be to our detriment and their gain

Obtain services dishonestly (Section 11) as above

Also see Secondary Liability CPS advice

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/secondary-liability-charging-decisions-principals-and-accessories   

In failing to respond appropriately MCS, energy provider and scheme provider would be accessories (Secondary Liability). EG In our case NONE raised any concerns given my advice that work had started without ANY documentation having been provided (giving us the impression that this was all perfectly normal). Similarly sign off was sanctioned, (before heat loss survey had been completed and whilst work remained outstanding), by the very agencies required to protect us.

Prosecution would very much be in the public interest given the national impact of DESNZ and especially considering that within ECO4, UK's most vulnerable aren't just targeted they're the only ones eligible!

@editor would you able to assist? I think you're right awareness will be key, but given the sheer volume of issues raised here I'm wondering if a direct mail to establish a collective for group action might be advisable?   

For my part I'd be very keen to help people who have been similarly effected ie. no documents and/or misleading (design) documents, complaint escalated and ignored. Please pm me.