Posted by: @wreckguru

↑

Certainly sounds like the MCS "something's gone wrong" time.

I can't fathom how they plan to redeem the BUS grant?

Time for a letter before action and then MCOL them for the cost to redo?

The best MCS could offer is writing them a "cease and desist" letter regarding advertising themselves as MCS accredited (which they are still advertising on their website BTW).

Trading standards/citizens advice won't offer any tangible recourse.

I owe them 2.5k on completion and commissioning and for me that [just about] compensates for the outstanding work, potential quality issues (hopefully nothing significant) and lack of guarantees. In fact they will never be able to deliver what I was sold as I specifically did not want an umbrella scheme which would sub contract the install and offer the sign off. I wanted it all done by one company.

I agree what you say about their proposed plan for the BUS grant. A total cluster and there is no way they will be able to claim this, or approach another MCS installer who has no affiliation with them, to retrospectively sign off our install, and apply for the grant. I suspect their visit the other day was the last attempt to suggest they could finish off some snagging knowing full well they have no chance of satisfying the full commissioning, and get paid. Now this notion has been put to bed I envisage the possibility that I won't hear from them again hence why I am now trying to rectify the issue with the homely controls.

@benson personally I would not give in yet - if you have what you said documented then contractually you are on good grounds.   (I have extensive experience of commercial contract dispute negotiation and resolution.)

You should write to them (a without prejudice save as to cost) dispute letter setting out your contractual and statutory rights to have the job completed.   You may engage a no win no fee to help you.

Remember they can sell your debt for up to 6 years, and they could have a different view to you - I would definitely have them agree your walk-away if that's your preference.  Mine would be that whilst ever they are trading you seek to have a CCJ lodge against them to cover a new system installed by MCS-installer as per your contracted terms.

MCOL claims are up-to £25,000 and the Tribunals Service will help you arrange mediation which is part of the process. 

I am not a lawyer, but I would review your contract if you like as it sounds like they are shafting you.

Thanks toodles I will make sure it is all provided in writing. Most of it already has (I compiled a document with all the various points and forwarded to them), and I just need to update it and resend perhaps. 

A no win no fee is a useful suggestion as we are a bit time poor to be honest- FT jobs and busy family life.

Just thought I'd come back and update on this- appreciate it has been a few months.

This year there's been a really positive turnaround- with all of the issues have been pretty much resolved. The outside pipework and lagging which was causing a lot of back and forth and 'rectifications' that would just involve taping up gaps has now all been redone with primary pro and new joint covers. It is more or less now spot on.

Homely is working well. The TRVs only in bedrooms (we have 17 radiators in total and this makes up 5 of them, so still a large 'open loop' volume) again works for us. I found this link quite interesting which seems to support the approach.

In the coldest weather the COP would be around 2.9 to 3 but in weather like this it ticks along at just under 5. The company are reaccredited with MCS and NAPIT. I'm sure the payment terms have played a large part in the above but in general, we are happy with how it turned out, and definitely happy with our ASHP. As for the BUS grant they've applied for this and I noticed that this can retrospectively be applied for now after installation when reading through the guidance (I'm sure this point wasn't in there when I looked last year thus head scratching regarding how they were going to do this). 

Thanks again for the advice.

Thanks for the feedback to the forum, as someone who posts fairly frequently its always good to hear how things turn out, whether or I contributed to any particular case

@benson thanks for the update and glad it's all gone well, with some decent initial numbers on the SCOP front. Can you just remind us what heat pump you had installed?

@editor sure. The 12kW Clivet.

Perhaps a final update on this and would welcome any views/advice.

As above the workmanship issues (or visible ones anyway) have been rectified.

The company sold us a system with a design temp of 45. The director told me numerous times that this was the case, in writing. I knew it wasn't, challenged it several times, and the final MCS certificate that has now finally come through states that design temp is 47. We now finally have the heat losses via Spruce which they have provided, that more or less backs this up i.e. that it could never achieve indoor temps at 45 because it barely achieves it at 47. They didn't provide any heat loss calcs prior to a few weeks ago, despite me asking numerous times for them.

They offered 3 years free servicing to compensate which I rejected in favour of a cash discount. I'm not sure quite what I'm asking here but I guess the point is on reflection I'm still annoyed about it, even with the discount they have offered (around £400).

I'm still awaiting the final paperwork and importantly the confirmation of warranty for the unit itself before settling the final invoice. 

The average COP this year via the Clivet/Midea controls- I was perhaps expecting it to increase more than it has over Spring but of course the bulk of the heating was in Jan and Feb when it was around 3.2. It's crept up to an average of around 3.35 for year to date. Do people generally find the final SCOP for Jan to Dec will increase as the colder (but still milder than Jan/Feb) weather creeps in later in the year? The performance for March and April looks ok. Likewise for the tail end of last year it was around 3.8 to 3.9 for Nov and Dec. I'm now wondering whether I should analyse this further before settling the final invoice, particularly taking into account the design temp issues (design temp at 50 provided SCOP of 3.88 and 45 was 4.1 ish- this is what I was quoted). Are there just too many variables when it comes to SCOP or it is reasonable to see evidence of the quoted figures.

I guess the other factor is whether the COP figures on the Clivet controls are accurate. They do seem a fair bit lower than those given on the homely dashboard albeit with the latter I can't go back any more than a month so I can't get the SCOP from that (unless I'm missing it).

Thanks

Posted by: @benson

↑

that it could never achieve indoor temps at 45 because it barely achieves it at 47.

Sorry to hear of your problems, I have two key questions:

• Just to confirm what you are saying - is this what you experience (that it wont achieve the design temperature) when running 24*7 with all zones open/TRVs/Thermostats at max?
• Is there a buffer tank/low loss header/plate heat exchanger between heat pump and emitters?

If you can answer these I can make a further comment (may need to ask a few more questions).

@benson you asked above about the Jan comparison with other months.

We have a COP of 4.0 for January and 4.7 for the October to March 6 months. This is on a 7kW Vaillant using the app figures which may be a little optimistic. This was with radiator design temp of 42C and DHW set to 48C. When the temperature was -2C outside it seemed roughly correct on 42C. On the coldest day -4C overnight (early January) the COP was 3.0 and I didn’t record the flow temperature but it was above 45C (because I had to increase the maximum limit).

@jamespa yes. The installers tried to limit the max flow temps to 45, I guess to try and convince us that was the design temp but as it happened we had sustained periods of minus 2 and the house would never reach target temperature (usually set at 20.5). When they set it back to 50, which homely advised it needed as well, it would settle on 47/48 during the coldest periods and the house was fine. Again this winter was actually quite handy as it deem seem to settle a lot of the time at exactly minus 2. Incidentally all of the other installers who quoted designed to 50, and some even proposed more rad changes to achieve this. It was therefore always at the back of my mind that what they were proposing was too optimistic. That said I have emails and numerous whatsapp messages promising me that design temp is 45. Then they send through the final paperwork with 47.

No buffer tank/heat plate exchangers/low loss headers.

@judith that is an interesting comparison. We are reasonable in our expectations (I think) that we were never going to achieve those sorts of figures as we definitely need higher flow temps without making some really drastic changes to either our insulation levels or quantity of radiators. I guess the other area of slight ambiguity as you allude to is what app or display reading we take as being correct. Having checked again this morning, the homely COP is consistently around 0.5 higher than what is shown on the clivet display.

Posted by: @benson

↑

No buffer tank/heat plate exchangers/low loss headers.

 

OK that rules this one out.  Good!

Posted by: @benson

↑

@jamespa yes. The installers tried to limit the max flow temps to 45, I guess to try and convince us that was the design temp but as it happened we had sustained periods of minus 2 and the house would never reach target temperature (usually set at 20.5). When they set it back to 50, which homely advised it needed as well, it would settle on 47/48 during the coldest periods and the house was fine. Again this winter was actually quite handy as it deem seem to settle a lot of the time at exactly minus 2. Incidentally all of the other installers who quoted designed to 50, and some even proposed more rad changes to achieve this. It was therefore always at the back of my mind that what they were proposing was too optimistic. That said I have emails and numerous whatsapp messages promising me that design temp is 45. Then they send through the final paperwork with 47.

Hmm.  Fundamentally of course this is down to emitter size/house loss.  I'm getting the feeling from your text that they may not have changed many emitters and you sort of know that they may not be changing sufficient. 

Contractually it could be complex depending on what was actually guaranteed at what stage.  The paperwork I have seen from installers has quite a few get out clauses (sort of reasonably because they cant really know what your house construction is).  

Even if you could prove that they guaranteed 45 the legal remedy is probably damages (you cant really argue it isnt fit for purpose, its just not as good as 'promised').  Given what you say above about emitters they might argue that to achieve 45 they would in fact have needed to do more upgrades, with a cost attached, so the damages are limited to your extra bills so far, plus the cost of fixing it now, but less the cost of doing the upgrades had they done them at the same time as the rest of the work.  

For comparison here is my COP (as measured by Vaillant) for this season, running at a flow temp of 42 @-2.

I would say that this is a difficult one, you could spend a lot of time on it and get nowhere but on the other hand they clearly don't feel totally confident otherwise they wouldn't have offered you a discount.  Legally I suspect it all comes down to how strong any guarantee of performance is taking into account the sequence of events.  Also (in terms of pre-contract 'guarantees') watch out for any 'entire agreement' clause in the contract you actually signed.  Practically, to achieve 45, it seems you will need to upgrade several rads so perhaps trying for a discount equal to the cost of doing that might be a way of settling and also reconciling your own feelings about it?  Alternatively challenge them to do the upgrades if that is what you actually want.