@papahuhu, did they contact you as a result for a complaint you've raised or it just a recently completed install that MCS want to audit?

@editor It was not designated as a “for cause” audit, they described it as part of their routine statistical sampling process. 
Both systems have been installed more than a year.

Copied from the email confirmation:

As a reminder, this audit is a visual, on-site assessment based on a specific set of questions. It is not intended to assess any design work, contractual matters, or issues that could be raised as a complaint.

Please find attached a copy of our Home Visit Commitment. We kindly ask that you read through this before the visit so you know what to expect.
 

@papahuhu, on paper, the audit process should be the safety net... the mechanism that ensures standards are actually being applied. But what keeps coming up, time and time again, is that the focus seems to land on the easily observable, compliance-style issues rather than the underlying engineering.

Things like covers, pipework details, basic insulation, labelling, etc. are the focus... all important, yes, but ultimately peripheral to whether the system has been properly designed. Meanwhile, the more consequential elements (heat loss, emitter sizing, system architecture, control strategy, etc.) either aren’t being interrogated in the same depth or aren’t being picked up when they’re wrong because the MCS surveyor has no clue what they're looking for/at.

That creates a strange dynamic where good installers end up taking responsibility for everything on site (even bits outside their control), while genuinely poor system design can still make it through certification because it looks acceptable.

So the question isn’t whether audits happen IMO, it’s what they’re actually measuring and whether that aligns with what really determines performance... time and time again, those two things aren’t fully joined up.

@editor Yes, you are probably correct. But, it is good that they have a process, however limited, to keep installers on their toes. Should help to prevent dangerously bad installers from continuing to operate under the scheme, I think that is positive.

@papahuhu, I take your point, and in principle, any audit process should help keep standards in check.

But I’m not convinced it’s working in practice on any meaningful level, at least not in the way homeowners would expect. We’ve got an MCS system that reports 94-95% "satisfaction", yet at the same time we’re seeing a steady stream of fundamentally flawed installations... not cosmetic issues, but design and performance failures. Those two things don’t really reconcile.

Even when something is picked up in an audit, the mechanism to actually enforce a proper outcome is weak. They can flag issues, but they can’t realistically force an installer back to fully remediate, and if that installer has gone bust, which we’re seeing more of, the homeowner is effectively stranded.

So yes, there is a process, but the question is whether it delivers meaningful protection or just the appearance of it. I appreciate I may sound cynical, but that view is shaped by too many cases (across the forums and in my inbox) where the system exists, yet the homeowner still ends up carrying the risk.

I will, however, be very interested to hear how your audit goes if you're willing to share.

@editor With a good installer. all the aspects being ‘visually checked’ should pass with flying colours anyway but if the less than thorough installations are to be checked in this same way, might work that is suspect just show a veneer of respectability that might not stand up to thorough scrutiny? My own installer (Cinergi) were very thorough and I only picked them up on a minor matter of insulation being absent on the first metre of hot water pipework from the heat battery.

I let them complete the installation as far as commissioning and I oversaw the initial radiator balancing and then we agreed I could take over to ‘finesse’ these settings as it was by then a warm February day.

When it came to the MCS checkup, this was a quick telephone call to see if I was happy with the setup - nothing more. I wonder if there may be an unofficial internal audit of the companies known to do a good job who perhaps may be trusted to do so without MCS breath down their necks? Even if there is this form of understanding, it doesn’t provide the end customer with any support should their installer not be in this class.☹️

Regards, Toodles.

@editor I’ll let you know.
I asked the question about remediation and they told me that any non compliance was followed up directly with the installer and that MCS monitored the process directly as part of the installers accreditation. I’m aware of a few niggles in my systems and will make the inspector aware of them, if I could get those put right I’d be a happy bunny.

@toodles My heat pump installer has stopped installing heat pumps, so it will be interesting to see what happens. But the physical install was flawless as I kept on their backs the whole time, the only exception is that I’m sure it doesn’t comply with the noise planning regs, they fiddled the paperwork. It doesn’t bother me but I’m sure my neighbour hates it.
My PV installer was a clown, there was so much to put right that I let a couple of things pass through exhaustion of constant conflict and rework. I’d like to get those fixed as they relate to non compliant DC cabling entry from an upper roof array into a lower roof array. The muppet originally routed it vertically down through some lead flashing and squirted a bit of silicon caulk to make it watertight. I got him to replace the flashing using a roofer but he insisted on routing it up under the tiles instead, but didn’t use a tile gland to protect the cable and it’s not armoured.

@papahuhu As much as anything, it was bad timing that slowed down the installation of our solar panels; coming soon after Covid 19 restrictions being lifted, there was still severe shortages of components and what should have taken 4 days but with an extra day allowed for ‘eventualities’ took over 3 weeks! Toodles.

@papahuhu Yes, we have had an MCS, APHC and Ofgem audits in the last year, so they do check some of us, we mostly pass with flying colours but we were told on one job that the warning label on the cylinder needs to be front and centre, very clear for the customer to read so they don't remove any electrical covers or tamper with the safety devices on the cylinder, now the label was clear and slightly off to the left but I see their point. We also got pulled on the G3 discharge cage, this was missing on one of our retrofits, I am not sure why as we carry them on the van, perhaps it was just over looked. Other than this there was no issues.

We returned to site, stuck 2 more labels on the cylinder and a cage. Tip top. 

Now we carry extra labels and stick additional labels on every cylinder. 

There was another audit we got pulled on a D1 being 609mm long, the rules state it must be less than 600mm I said measure from the bottom to top of elbow and its more like 590mm but they insisted top to bottom of elbow, lol if you measure centre to centre its was actually 599mm, but we cut it all out and did it again.

I think its worth being checked even if only 1 time a year, it does keep us on our toes a bit and I also feel like I - you / we are getting something for the money as this costs a lot to be MCS and the certificate cost, so at least they are doing something for the £££M of pounds they generate.

@ashp-bobba 

Thats interesting thanks. So they were more concerned about building regs/safety issues rather than MCS regs, I can see some logic behind that, pressurised system regs are there to prevent injury or worse. How often are you supposed to replace the pressure relief valve please and does anyone ever do it? I guess it’s designed to fail open, as opposed to closed.