Yes, anyone trying to get a sense of what a heatpump will look like specially in term of SCOP and running ££ via the quick question/comment/reply that tends to be the norm in Facebook must be easily confused. Simple for an installer looking to get some leads via FB and possibly an admin to provide a quick reply and force the poster into a long explanation. Few do it... 

Much better to read the book and some of the posts here to get a real sense I think

When things go wrong, there seems to be a fairly consistent pattern across parts of the industry (installers, manufacturers, certification bodies, consumer codes and others) where responsibility is subtly deflected away from the installation itself and placed back onto the homeowner. Poor performance becomes 'expected behaviour', missing design documents are said to have "definitely been provided", high running costs are blamed on how the system was "used" and genuine concerns are reframed as misunderstandings rather than addressed head-on.

I’m seeing this more and more, not less, and I think it’s a problem the industry needs to be far more honest about if it wants to build trust with homeowners. 

I’m going to work on a video looking at how this kind of gaslighting shows up in the heat pump world, how to spot it and what homeowners can do when they feel they’re being deflected rather than helped.

If you’ve experienced this yourself (whether from an installer, MCS, a consumer code, a certification body or anyone else involved) feel free to share your experience here. It doesn’t need to be a rant (but it can be if you want) and you don’t need to name names unless you want to. Examples, patterns or even just a "this sounds familiar" are all useful.

Don't want to go public? DM me.

I think this is a conversation worth having and it’d be good to see how widespread these experiences actually are.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

The problem I perceive based on my experience is that (it appears) that the installer has to identify someone to be audited and seek their permission, and of course they are going to identify someone who is happy.  I dont actually know if there is a process whereby a random audit is carried out.

 

That’s honestly wild. I had no idea it worked like that. I’d always assumed MCS selected a property at random from an installer’s recent jobs. If the installer is effectively choosing who gets audited, then the whole exercise starts to look extremely theatrical. Of course they’re going to put forward a homeowner who’s 'happy' and unlikely to rock the boat. 

That is my understanding as well that the installer selects which ones get audited, or certainly have an influence over it. This is what our installer said and to placate us when I was complaining to them about the issues we had- they told us that they would put ours forward for inspection by MCS to reassure us that it had been completed to the correct standards. They also said that they would get NAPIT out as well.

Suffice to say neither of these two things happened and another reason why we never settled the final invoice with them.

@editor @gruff2001 

 The problem I perceive based on my experience is that (it appears) that the installer has to identify someone to be audited and seek their permission, and of course they are going to identify someone who, like me, is happy.  I don't actually know if there is a process whereby a random audit is carried out.

Our experience was different, we got audited 3 times for works we had completed, twice by MCS and once by ofgem, at no point did either contact us to tell us we would be audited and with what client until the same day, they went to site without us and asked for the paperwork once they had completed the site visit. 

After I asked the clients what did they check and what did they say? it was reported that the inspections on one site was more relating to compliance and confirmation of the system working, this all took around 30 mins, the other survey by Ofgem was shorter and was just to make sure there was a system and that the grant was being claimed against works completed, (I assume this is to help prevent fraud)

He did not ask me about the COP, whether my bills were too high, how the actual performance compared to the documentation submitted to MCS...

From what I've learned following MCS for five years, along with their CEO's approach to keeping a monopoly and stranglehold on the industry, they want/need to be seen as this amazing organisation that is implementing high standards, so they can post press releases and go back to government saying 90-95% of homeowners are satisfied with their installs. Asking people to comment would drive that number very quickly and wouldn't suit their narrative.

The problem I perceive based on my experience is that (it appears) that the installer has to identify someone to be audited and seek their permission, and of course they are going to identify someone who is happy.  I dont actually know if there is a process whereby a random audit is carried out.

That’s honestly wild. I had no idea it worked like that. I’d always assumed MCS selected a property at random from an installer’s recent jobs. If the installer is effectively choosing who gets audited, then the whole exercise starts to look extremely theatrical. Of course they’re going to put forward a homeowner who’s 'happy' and unlikely to rock the boat. 

He did ask if I was happy, checked the DHW tank, the installation around the heat pump and the installation around the controls. 

I also hadn't realised (or just forgot) you'd been audited. I've always wondered how technically capable the assessors are when it comes to heat pumps and low temp heating system. And I don’t mean spotting the obvious stuff like messy pipework or poor lagging, anyone can do that. I mean the harder things like design assumptions, emitter sizing, hydraulic choices, control strategy, flow rates, dT, commissioning data and whether the system is actually operating as designed. I'm guessing from what's been said above that's not look at all!

@editor @gruff2001 

FWIW mine was also audited.  The problem I perceive based on my experience is that (it appears) that the installer has to identify someone to be audited and seek their permission, and of course they are going to identify someone who, like me, is happy.  I don't actually know if there is a process whereby a random audit is carried out.

The auditor stayed for over an hour but much of that was chatting about the industry.  He did ask if I was happy, checked the DHW tank, the installation around the heat pump and the installation around the controls.  He suggested (sensibly IMHO) that the installer should remove the lever on the shut off valve between the DHW tank and the expansion vessel (the vessel is in the loft).  I told him in no uncertain terms that I wanted it left nearby in case it needed to be shut off due to flood! 

My installers next inspection is now set for 3 years time.

According to their blurb MCS going forward is going to focus more on the customer experience and resolving complaints than on box ticking exercises.  Below, for example, is what it says about 'MCS2.0' in the warm homes plan.  Note the unequivocal responsibility for resolving customer issues - something that has been absent to date.  Also note the Government oversight of the new scheme stated in the third excerpt. 

Will they deliver?  Only time will tell, but I have to agree with @editor that the track record to date doesn't give grounds for excessive optimism.