@bart, it's utterly nuts what you've been through! This is a good place to keep the conversation going.

Posted by: @bart

↑

RHH: I am looking for recommendation in the Shropshire area.

Do you need someone to come out and do a report?

@editor Yes based on legal advice we understand a site visit would be required.

Meanwhile possibly useful (TMI) for all concerned...

NAPIT's remit doesn't consider the Consumer Rights Act's requirement for Reasonable Skill & Care it only considers compliance. Gantley & UKAS appear to have confirmed same. Due to the limitations of the Trustmark complaints process we currently understand NAPIT's remediation must be completed, by the same installer, prior to any consideration of contractual issues.

NAPIT current findings

ie. 6kw ASHP is 'compliant' for a 3.5KW heat loss because the installer claims the system can modulate to 3KW.

AND

Volumiser is 'compliant' given manufacturer's data confirms ASHP is borderline oversized and a volumiser is accordingly required.

Regardless NAPIT DO NOT (their words) commit to any resulting SCOP from their required 'Improvement Actions' and there is no requirement that they do (again NAPIT's advice to date).  

Due to such a bizarre situation I now need someone who can impress a court to confirm:

1. ASHP Current SCOP is 1.7 for heating. Manufacturer confirms modulation reduces SCOP and manufacturer's data confirms ASHP/heat loss oversizing reduces SCOP. System cannot achieve MCS predictions of 3.8 for my system.  

After 1 year usage the DHW has achieved 3.5 (thanks to RHH support over 3months). In layman's terms, if left to itself the system performs remarkably but cannot cope with moronic installers.

With all due respect to NAPIT technicians, no amount of tweeks to pipework will achieve predicted heating SCOP (We have achieved system Flow rates, if a 32 litre volumiser is compliant, 5 litres in rads wont improve SCOP). Sensor relocation is an issue but it works for the DHW...

Ergo: The ASHP system is oversized and cannot achieve predictions, perfect world or otherwise. 

2. Volumiser Volumiser was fitted to stop short cycling. Short cycling continues. No volumiser was detailed in any design. I had no knowledge of and gave no permission to install any (32litre volumiser) in my loft . NAPIT have confirmed (42litre heating system) missing radiators and undersized radiators. Upon what basis has the requirement for a volumiser been established? SCOP does not record unnecessary heat lost in the loft.

Ergo: The 'compliant' requirement of bucket of water in my loft to compensate design failure is ludicrous. (A fool with a drill does not get to get jiggy in my loft without my express permission. Applications on a postcard to NOT on YOUR NELLY!)

We have similar PV and IWI issues. Master plumbers, Retrofit Coordinator's/expert witnesses willing to wade out with me into the depths of broken complaints process within an industry with its head in the sand please do get in touch.

Full disclosure our current position is that the installer concerned has acted Fraudulently due to the following non exhaustive list: 

• Role of assessor misrepresented (RdSAP)
• relationship of assessor to installer withheld (Director of installer)
• details of Installer withheld
• failure to disclose ANY documentation prior to work start
• details of applicable complaints process withheld
• ALL documents regarding ANY engagement with a Retrofit coordinator fabricated
• claimed completion of incomplete installation
• Pre RdSAP survey details (lowering rating/increasing funding based on misinformation)
• Post RdSAP 98 completion misrepresentation
• misrepresentation of heat loss survey x2
• dishonestly provided information regarding number of radiators to be fitted
• misrepresented required radiator sizing
• misrepresented number of solar panels included
• dishonestly predicted output of solar panels
• misrepresented bracketing for solar panels
• failed to disclose resulting damage to roof
• dishonestly predicted SCOP of ASHP (3.8 without volumiser)
• failed to disclosed volumiser requirement
• dishonestly claimed our agreement to a volumiser being installed
• dishonestly claimed insulation was rectified
• dishonestly claimed RC sign off of window surround/dry rot removal
• misrepresented POPT of insulation 55% coverage not the required 67%
• dishonestly claimed loft insulation had been compliantly installed
• dishonestly reported ventilation test results
• misrepresented ventilation test results
• misrepresented ventilation as having met requirements as per PAS2035.

Many of the regulators engaged to date have advised "We cannot intervene in matters relating to alleged criminal or fraudulent activity.”

Thanks for reading

I am sorry to hear about the problems.  My advice to you would be focus on a small number of provable issues to avoid any possibility that you are perceived as throwing mud at everything in the hope it sticks.  With tha5 in mind

Posted by: @bart

↑

1. ASHP Current SCOP is 1.7 for heating.

This is the key one as, if provable it violates both BUS rules and building regulations.  Can I ask how robust the evidence is for the scop is as it can be challenging to determine accurately particularly with low loss houses?

Posted by: @bart

↑

After 1 year usage the DHW has achieved 3.5

If that is  COP it a good figure 

Posted by: @bart

↑

NAPIT have confirmed (42litre heating system) missing radiators and undersized radiators.

Is this in writing.  If so it's another key one

The arguments about a volumiser and oversizing are ones you can easily lose so you need to make the two above as robust as possible.

@jamespa Thanks for engaging and agreed re mud slinging. I've detailed simply because its all ball achingly documented. Libel hasn't limited my sharing more detail here, leverage does....

Both the above figures you detail have been calculated from the totals displayed via Ecodan's FTC7 and that is all I've got. NAPIT didn't even look at them.

P.S. Please could you detail (and or link) BUS rules as NAPIT's current position/dismissal has disturbed me.

Is there a minimum COP requirement? As per earlier in this thread closest I could find on MCS guidelines was that 30% error was an acceptable margin on any MCS predicted figures (mine was 3.8)

Here are the BUS rules, note in particular 9(d)

Part L of the Building regulations here is also relevant, particularly L1b

Posted by: @bart

↑

Both the above figures you detail have been calculated from the totals displayed via Ecodan's FTC7 and that is all I've got. NAPIT didn't even look at them.

To be brutally honest, while the figures from the FTC7 are certainly indicative, its not difficult to argue that its not conclusive because a small mismatch in the sensors that measure the heat delivered can lead to quite a big error in the apparent COP, particularly if the heat pump is oversized relative to the property.  Have you got any corroborating evidence and/or detail of how this varies with OAT, season etc? and how the claimed energy delivered compares to your previous consumption.  Basically anything that might reasonably be used to establish that its not just a sensor problem?  What is the reported energy consumption and energy delivered for space heating (and for water heating) and over what period, that will at least provide some sense check.

Do you know how many on off cycles it has gone through in what operating period.  I suspect this is recorded somewhere and is very useful evidence.

Have you got the bit about the radiators in writing?

Personally I would drop the allegations that 'might be libellous' and focus only on things which you can publish (there is no libel in telling the truth!)  Everything else risks marking you out as an 'awkward' customer rather than a customer with a genuine problem, which is unlikely to help the treatment of your case.  If you were to narrow your core complaint down to a few provable and unambiguously unacceptable things (which therefore are publishable) then you make it much more difficult for it to be criticised or ignored.  Remember that these bodies probably waste a vast amount of time dealing with unjustified complaints from customers who have no real grounds; you don't want them to think you are one of those!

Sorry to ask these questions but I sense you are struggling to be heard, and in my experience providing focussed unequivocal evidence is a good way to deal with that.

@jamespa Many thanks NAPIT have misinformed me again. 2.8 would roughly be inline with ECO4 requirements of real cost savings given the cost of lpg vs electric. Yes both missing rads and undersizing is in NAPIT's written report.

I hope I have understood both your advice and the 'awkward' label. I am always hoping to learn however I have been herding cats for 12 months straight now. Unfortunately its just a job for them whilst garnering adequate attention has become my life (after 1 year I'm about 2000hrs in or 400+ billable hours).

ASHP predictions of 1400KWH DHW and 3000KWH heating. Given abject failure DHW was our only variable requirement so following RHH advice and a very understanding household we've cut DHW usage to 1/3 about 60 litres per day and with lots of fine tuning achieved 3.5.

Whilst you echo my concerns regarding FT7 data, it is corroborated by the monthly data combined with intermittent thermostat readings across the year broadly tracking manufacturer's data at 40% efficiency for heating while DHW overachieves. However given mild OATs the heating system can't achieve 17-18 in any of the living areas. As soon as OAT reaches 5C's or below costs increase to £10-15 per day after which (given cycling) the wheels fall off. 

Yes thanks to the requirements of the scheme pre 27 and post 98 RdSAP figures were provided. IE. ECO4 claims our 200 year old cottage is nearly a passive house and the installation is delivering predicted Annual Bill Savings ABS of £1200 per year. DESNZ still claim 98% of my pre install predicted heating costs whilst our actual running costs have effectively trebled.

Its a despicable nonsense and I said there is no risk of libel. As you rightly point out the truth bites. It's not even that complicated, it is however convoluted which is why bite sized media have yet to report such nonsense @editor no offence intended I get it, it's not your focus. Hopefully given a referral to the Serious Fraud Office the entire industry will improve.

[Way off topic but given your concerns and to give you an idea of the madness of it all:

*No real costs or savings have ever been recorded. Yet nationally bill payers have funded £4.96 billion (via a gov.uk agreed uplift to suppliers daily charges) for the suppliers (obligated) provision of a PREDICTION Home Heating Cost Reduction (HHCRO) at a cost of £21.41 per £1 PREDICTED annual bill saving. Household Energy Efficiency Statistics, headline release January 2026 - GOV.UK Little wonder a growing number of us feel like the canary in a renewables labour camp]

The RdSAP informed pre install predicted heating costs would have required x2 deliveries per year given my LPG tank size. I've had a 3/4 tank delivery every 18months. Bills for the past few years were about £500 per year including cooking not £1200 for heating alone. I'm not going to even bother unpacking RdSAP 98.

My fixed income could not accommodate the running costs which can be verified by Ecodan's cloud data. Given a young child heating had to be be provided by a log burner. HETAS can confirm my log burner was installed after my ASHP failed to deliver. Regardless of OAT's the system can't heat any living areas above 18 anyway. SMART meter was installed the year before for cost comparison 2024 vs 2025.

Many thanks again for your time. I hope I'm still worthy of your investment please keep it coming.

@bart 

Thank you for your reply.  Once again I am sorry to hear about your problems.  You are probably not going to like what Im about to say, but in my view it has to be said.

Unfortunately, in your response, you are mixing up many things and not providing a coherent stream of evidence to support the key elements of your complaint, nor clear answers to some of the questions posed.   You are undermining your case by the inappropriate use of bold text (which is generally regarded as equivalent to shouting) and mention of engaging the SFO, which is clearly not a realistic course of action.  The people you are complaining too are unlikely to spend the time wading through the irrelevant material to find the nuggets of relevant information, and if they have to do this it will almost inevitably result in them doubting the nuggets of relevant material that they can find.  

Put simply, if your response here is representative of how you approach NAPIT and other industry bodies (including your installer). then you run a very high risk indeed that your case is dismissed on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence.   

It may be that you need support to put your case together in a way that is more likely to yield results, and if so you might try the Citizens advice bureau if you haven't already done so.   By all means continue to post here of course.

Once again I am sorry to hear about your problems and hope that one way or another they can be resolved.

@jamespa thanks. Certainly not my intention to cause offence, confuse or frustrate you.

I understand you are invested and understood you were trying to help. Is that still the case?

Perhaps we could agree that people communicate in different ways and go our separate ways? (My understanding is that bold is used to highlight text and CAPITALS to shout). My apologies if you found my communication difficult to follow.

Similar to your own advice judgements and or suppositions regarding my behaviour elsewhere is perhaps best evidenced or indeed kept to yourself. 

In the interim I would welcome any efficacious interactions concerning the plethora of issues raised.

@bart No need to apologise, you didn't cause offence, confuse or frustrate me.  For the avoidance of doubt I am not making any assumptions about your behaviour elsewhere, which is why i said 'if they have to...'.  However I apologise if I gave that impression.

All that said, if I am to have a chance to attempt to help I do need information which is both focussed and precise because otherwise I am in the dark about your system and house.  If you could post

1. the NAPIT report about undersizing and missing radiators (feel free to redact any personal detail)
2. the evidence you have that the COP for space heating is 1.7 (including, for example, the actual figures produced by the FT7 and the period to which they relate, your actual energy consumption and the period to which it relates, your previous energy consumption and the period to which it relates, evidence of house loss)
3. evidence of the 'short cycling' you say happens and when/how it was measured and what the outdoor temperature was at the time

then I will endeavour to provide a useful comment. 

Please don't add in anything else at present, the above are the key issues on which (so far as I can see based on what you have said) your case principally rests, and therefore, unless these can be proven robustly, I don't personally see how I can offer any useful advice (in which case I will say no more).

Finally please don't feel in any way obliged to respond; you have already spent a lot of time on this and I fully appreciate that you may not wish to spend further time.

@jamespa many thanks for highlighting the areas about which you require further evidence. As and when we are looking for you fix our heating, we will endeavor to provide the evidence (over and above information) you require (or perhaps I've misunderstood?).

As I'm sure you can appreciate given liaison with: MCS, HIES, NAPIT, IAA, UKAS, CTSI, Trustmark, Supplier, Manufacturer, local MP, Sec of State, PAC, OFGEM, DESNZ, OFGEM Counterfraud, ActionFraud, local & national Media, Solicitors & Expert Witnesses this may take some time.

In the interim do you know anybody in Shropshire who can facilitate our current request?

Regarding engagement with the Serious Fraud Office (which I note you additionally find unlikely) please see below and or attached (noting the continued packaging of ECO4 issues as an insulation problem and not involving the complexities of renewable tech nor regulation per se)

Abject failure of govt insulation scheme leaves households financially exposed, PAC warns - Committees - UK Parliament

Perhaps you will find satisfaction applying Occum's Razor elsewhere?

Posted by: @bart

↑

@jamespa many thanks for highlighting the areas about which you require further evidence. As and when we are looking for you fix our heating, we will endeavor to provide the evidence (over and above information) you require (or perhaps I've misunderstood?).

Thank you for your reply. 

As I thought I had made clear in my final sentence above, I don't require anything, I am merely offering to try to help if (and only if) you want it.  Since help is requested in the title of the thread I thought you just might.  I apologise it I didn't make this clear.

I was, of course, aware of the report by the Committee of Public Accounts about the failures of insulation schemes, but was concentrating on the issues referred to in the thread title.  I apologise if this was not what you wanted.

I will not make any further comment on your case and wish you the best of luck with NAPIT or any other body you may contact.

Many thanks to the 2 expert witnesses I've already been in contact with. I've forwarded your details to my solicitors who will be touch with regard next steps.

£4.96 Billion for a 1:22 return per year (as you well know) isn't even half the problem.

As per my request (now some steps above) any experts out there who love this tech (like me) and are sick of its subversion to petty arguments online please do contact me.

Generous funding has been confirmed for well qualified, experienced and knowledgeable applicants.