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

I’m contacting installers and heating engineers in and around Shropshire to see who is available.

£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. 

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)