Interesting read and MCS are as you say, beyond useless.

Our installer was accredited before our installation, but were suspended by them/NAPIT 2 weeks prior to the job commencing . When issues cropped up after they'd started , I checked again hence it coming to light.

The company continued to advertise themselves on their website as MCS accredited throughout. I told them [MCS] about this and they literally could not have been less interested. They have since reaccredited them and without even asking about what issues we had. You'd think they would have a problem with the fact that the company effectively breached their contract with us by installing an ASHP under the guise of being MCS backed, when they werent.

When I asked them why they weren't keen to know, or indeed audit our install, they said because the company had been suspended so the installation quality was nothing to do with them.

@dgclimatecontrol 

Have a look at the article and my comments below, I’d really value your take. I come from a technical background, so logic, maths and science are things I both enjoy and use in my work. For me, this whole journey has been a learning process.

Any criticism is welcome, and I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood something. If the information I’ve shared is accurate, then I think more people need to be aware of it.

I also wonder whether some of the mathematical points and pitfalls I’ve run into are already covered in the Guide to Heat Pumps book available to pre-order on here. Honestly, £20 to potentially avoid a £10k+ mistake seems like a very small price to pay, regardless of whether you ultimately go ahead with a heat pump or not.

@Mars

Please feel free to share these with your podcast guests for their perspective. This is the kind of information that, as far as I can tell, isn’t available in one place anywhere else, nor clearly explained.

Even resources like the Heat Geeks video here

In Adman's example: will your radiator actually see 50 °C flow water from your heat pump? That’s the catch. A Type 22 panel radiator is roughly rated at 2200 W (7600 BTU) at ΔT50, to match Adam's figures of 1080 W, assumes 55 °C flow and 50 °C return with a 21 °C room temperature. On paper, that looks fine. But in practice:

• At a 47.5 °C mean water temperature, output drops to around 768 W which is OK for the 500 W required room heat loss mentioned by Adam.
• If you’re aiming for a 23 °C room temperature, it falls to about 655 W which may or may not be enough if on a ground floor, but nowhere near, as Adam puts it "way above the 500 watts needed".

You’re better off using the calculation formula I posted as a comment in the article, because it applies accurately to any radiator rather than relying on generalised tables

If you Google “how to work out heat pump radiator size”, the AI summary gives a vague statement (without specifics):

“Radiator output drops: A radiator that provides 1000 watts at a high temperature will output significantly less (e.g., around 350 watts) at the lower temperatures of a heat pump system.”

If you click through to the Aura Retrofit article, they explain it more clearly:

“If we look at a radiator that gives out 1000 watts at these figures, when we change the conditions to be flow 45 °C onto the radiator and 40 °C off the radiator as for a Heat Pump system, then the heat output of the radiator drops to be about 350 watts.”

That’s pretty accurate, and it matches the formula I’ve provided. But the issue is: how many people actually click through, see the numbers, and understand the reason why? Most will only see the oversimplification, vague AI summary, and without the maths behind it, they won’t grasp how critical this drop in output really is.

And on a wider point, I personally believe that just like the PPI claims, diesel claims, and now car finance claims, we’ll start seeing heat pump claims coming through in 5–10 years’ time.

@benson If you have issues with yours and haven't had it working quite as expected, I would go through home insurance (especially if you have legal cover) and Credit Card if paid with.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, I foresee huge Heat Pump claim movement coming up soon, going to take some time for the solicitors and regulatory parties to wake up to it.

@drei yes I sought advice from our home insurance, and we paid in part by credit card. What protected us and drove our installers to rectify some of the issues were the payment terms ie large final payment, and making sure we weren’t liable for any failure to redeem the BUS voucher. We then used this as leverage. 

As you say, customers need to take steps to protect themselves as MCS won’t. 

Posted by: @drei

↑

That’s pretty accurate, and it matches the formula I’ve provided. But the issue is: how many people actually click through, see the numbers, and understand the reason why? Most will only see the oversimplification, vague AI summary, and without the maths behind it, they won’t grasp how critical this drop in output really is.

This is one of my biggest bugbears these days, how AI does make fools of us all (if we let it, which too many people do). Google's AI is just a text  aggregator with zero intelligence. It picks seemingly random results from its own results from the search question, without any attempt to assess the quality of the information, and then regurgitates the text, in prose riddled with caveats ("A radiator running at a lower flow temperature will most likely have a lower output etc etc"). Yet, despite these weasel caveat clauses, the AI summary is nonetheless presented in such a way as to suggest it is authoritative. To a generation unused to looking at primary sources (ie established text and reference books), the unchecked and unconsidered google quick fix is second nature, but at a terrible cost to knowledge. Just as satnav destroys not just the ability to navigate using a map, but also the sense of direction, so AI destroys something even more fundamental, our intellect, and our ability to understand.    

To paraphrase, those who would give up a little intellectual curiosity to gain a quick answer, deserve neither.    

@cathoderay agreed, and I hope that the Renewable Heating Hub starts coming up in Google searches more and more. It seems to be one of the few places that has the good and the ugly in one place. If Mars is putting together that heat pump guide book, and has all the relevant information, I hope it becomes the black bible of heat pump for future owners and even installers.

Now posting on the right topic....

With general building/home improvement works, we the consumers would ordinarily take steps to protect ourselves from poor workmanship. Fundamentally this comes down to a reasonable deposit, and then a schedule of payments, or indeed full payment once the job is complete.

For whatever reason, ashp installations with the BUS grant by and large seem to be different. The vast majority of our quotes effectively stipulated that we must pay all of the outstanding balance, minus the grant, before work has even started. The ts and cs even went on to explain that any failure in BUS grant redemption would result in the customer being fully liable for this amount as well. The authorisation of the grant of course needs to go through the customer, to sign off.

Quotes such as the above- to be honest we just didn’t entertain them. 

Clearly we can’t profess to saying that we chose our installers wisely, but what I can say is that we are mostly compensated. We had our installers where we wanted them from day 1, to a degree.

Once anyone has all their money, the only leverage you have is the threat of leaving them a bad review. I didn’t expect anything more from MCS or NAPIT to be honest, than we got. 

@drei I was very sorry to read this heartbreaking story.  It is bad enough to feel you have been ripped off, but being cold at home with your family must make it doubly bad.  On top of that, you seem to be stuck for a route to fix the problem.

It seems that you have moved forward to the position that you have a clear definition of the root causes of the problem and a design for a solution that will fix them.  The key challenges remaining are to find three companies willing to quote for the project to support your Section 75 claim and one of those companies willing and well qualified to actually do the work.  Of course, you will need the installers to support you afterwards, for which they would expect payment.

I can see why a prospective installer might be wary of picking up the job.  

1. They have only a 1 in 3 chance of getting the work.  
2. They would be missing out on some profit from the original project, because they won’t be making a margin on the heat pump.
3. Given that the previous installation failed, there might be an increased risk that they would also fail.  It will be obvious to them that you would not let them off the hook.  This might cost them money and damage their reputation.
4. A Section 75 claim might involve them in bureaucracy, which could do add to their costs.
5. If you are a long way away from their base, the installation and subsequent support might cost them extra due to travel time.

I’m sorry that this list sounds discouraging, but it seems to be another problem that you need to solve.  How do you motivate them - why should they help you and what is in it for them?

Two things that might motivate them are money and positive publicity.  

You might need to pay the three companies to give you the quotes - galling I know, but the Section 75 might save you more money than you would spend.

Maybe, you could find a “hero installer” similar to the Urban Plumber.  You might be able to trade the offer of a publicity video about them heroically fixing your disaster, in return for the benefit of doing the work for you.  No doubt, you would still have to pay for the work.  It’s a bit of a long shot, but it might be worth a try.

These are just my thoughts,  but I hope they may be helpful in some way.

@drei

When I was in local government we were of course under a duty to get best value, a duty we took very seriously BTW.  Generally getting 3 or more quotes was the way to do this, but sometimes the market wouldn't oblige, it just wasn't interested.  Sometimes we got only 1 quote (very occasionally none)  In this case we went to some pains to ensure that we could demonstrate we had made a serious effort to get quotes and, as long as long as we had one which we were happy with, we went with that, and if we got zero we changed our approach to make it more attractive.

Another thing we did was set a reasonable deadline for submissions.  If a job needs doing it needs doing, and we can't wait forever.  

I think the same principle should apply here and I doubt that the section 75 obligations provide a get out for the bank just because you cant get 3 quotes, provided you have made a serious effort to do so.

So my advice to you (unless you have already succeeded) is to go about it systematically and retain the evidence so you can show you have.  So you might for example email all mcs installers within say a 20 Mike radius giving the detail and 1 week to confirm interest, 4 weeks to submit a quote.  Then simply package it all to and send it to the bank.  I don't think they can argue given that you have also advertised here.

If you get no expressions if interest after a week you can then approach the bank and say OK, what do you want me to do?  The ball is then in their court and they may indeed suggest paying installers to quote (in which case they will have to stump up) or doing it on a t&m basis.

If I were an installer (which im not) I would probably be reluctant to offer a fixed price, but might just do it on t&m with a floor price (ie a minimum fee).

Whatever you do I would try to make the timescale and process deterministic for your own sanity.

I hope there is something in there that helps.