Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

Have you had a chance to recover enough to elaborate on MCS's reply?

I'm working on it 🤣 

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

'MCS Installation Standards will be stripped back to become ‘technical truths’' is still meaningless babble,

As you say it's meaningless babble. 

Fwiw I doubt we need mcs standards at all given part L of building regulations which, unlike mcs standards, are legally enforceable. Furthermore building regulations, unlike mcs 'standards' don't have the potential unnecessarily to restrict innovation because they concentrate on the what not the how.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

The corollary of this is that, rather than complaining about it (which many here do), we might be better accepting that it's a choice that the public has made, and thinking of alternative ways to address the problems caused by poor installs.

Put another way we have to deal with the world as it is not the world as we would like it to be.  The world as it is includes, for better or worse, the voting choices of the public.

My own answer is in the answer to "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The answer is no one at present. The solution is to make MCS accountable. Very doable, eg by way of a select committee. 

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

. Very doable, eg by way of a select committee

Really?  Do you think that would work in practice or would mcs just produce lots of stats to show how well they are doing resulting in lots of good words and expressed intent, but no actual change. 

Given my previous comments about the votor preference for light regulation, I would favour abolition.  Then there is no ambiguity or misplaced feeling of comfort, the situation is as it appears, and poor installers are denied the protection that mcs currently offers.

Unfortunately this is clearly not going to happen so I'm not sure I can see a solution other than consumer education to help people make better choices up front.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Really?  Do you think that would work in practice or would mcs just produce lots of stats to show how well they are doing resulting in lots of good words and expressed intent, but no actual change. 

I certainly think it's possible, but it depends very much on the select committee members, and their willingness to ask the right questions, and on that we might have some influence. We could point out that, for example, by their own admission, the 'satisfaction' survey is just a post installation snapshot. It's like asking a new car buyer how satisfied they are with the car as he or she leaves the showroom.  And a whole lot of other things, like where are the examples of MCS sorting things out? There might also be a fear of scrutiny effect on MCS staff. No one likes scrutiny.   

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Given my previous comments about the votor preference for light regulation, I would favour abolition.  Then there is no ambiguity or misplaced feeling of comfort, the situation is as it appears, and poor installers are denied the protection that mcs currently offers.

Unfortunately this is clearly not going to happen so I'm not sure I can see a solution other than consumer education to help people make better choices up front.

I agree with all these point, shoot the bastards, simple but effective, but ain't going to happen, which leaves consumer education, which of course is currently being done splendidly by the fossil fuel industry, aided and abetted by my mate Mike down at the Drovers. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

The corollary of this is that, rather than complaining about it (which many here do), we might be better accepting that it's a choice that the public has made, and thinking of alternative ways to address the problems caused by poor installs.

That makes sense. We have similar views of what our democratic system, where people have mostly voted for a smaller role for the state, including in terms of regulation and where that led us into on the renewable transition. 

I noticed that the consultation and conclusions from MCS @cathoderay mentioned are dated 2023. Essentially before a significant increase of the willingness of the state to take a more active role. If this was actually broadly accepted in the last grilling by the select committee, it would probably mean less paperwork. As an informed consumer, I would hope to benefit from a lowering of the barriers to entry for new installers and so have lower prices. But I think that will only happen if the mcs monopoly is eroded ..

The real change in value of regulation would happen when people doing boxticking and also being reassured by the fact MCS is not "closing them down"  when found out (and the other infra would need to stop any further damage from those actors following an MCS ban).. 

Until that happens, my personal interest as a consumer may be best represented by reducing the monopoly rights of MCS. As if I had 7.5k to manage a gas boiler removal, I could probably get a lot more done including on things that impact the "operating costs" like bess. But no point in me  dreaming, as that path is full of hurdles with all sorts of actors unable to help because of the need for MCS approval. 

The thing is that as the current system does not allow for peace of mind. So it would be nice to see some reward for having to do my bit for net0 (that the country signed up to), by learning myself and being a part of the rhh community.  

To expand on the Select Committee idea, here is the transcript of a recent (Jan 2026) Health and Social Care Committee hearing into the GMC, another regulator funded by fees from those it regulates. I am not sure (and can't seem to find out) if these hearings are regular events, but I do know they happen from time to time. The MPs asking the questions are generally well informed about current problems, and do press the witnesses fairly hard.   

What I meant to say was: 

The real value of regulation can only happen when people doing boxticking and being encouraged by the fact MCS is not "closing them down" when they are found out are actually weeded out. And a proper regulator would argue for other infra needed to stop any banned scum finding an easy way back by changing business or similar.  

Posted by: @batpred

↑

other infra needed to stop any banned scum finding an easy way back by changing business or similar.  

Other infra? Rather infra dig, I dare say. More seriously, stopping banned scum from finding an easy way onto the GMC register came up during the Select Committee hearing. The problem is overseas doctors who 'forget' to tell the GMC that they have been banned in their own country, despite being asked. The GMC has reciprocal information exchange arrangements with only a handful of countries, which means they have to rely on what the applicant tells them most of the time. Truly, a policeman's lot is not a happy one

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

other infra needed to stop any banned scum finding an easy way back by changing business or similar.  

Other infra? Rather infra dig, I dare say. 

I mean courts, police, an id register (or perhaps one can be built based on the NI and HMRC registers).. tried and tested infra like our finish friend was telling us..