This article had been up for a few hours before I received two messages from the powers that be, asking us to take the article down. If only the response time was as good from these organisations in addressing homeowner's issues with installers. 

Posted by: @editor

↑

This article had been up for a few hours before I received two messages from the powers that be, asking us to take the article down. If only the response time was as good from these organisations in addressing homeowner's issues with installers. 

Why am I not surprised to hear that.

Posted by: @editor

↑

This article had been up for a few hours before I received two messages from the powers that be, asking us to take the article down.

Having read the article before the takedown, I did feel the name-and-shame/ad-hominem aspect was a little strong. An edited version of the article, running through the diagnosis methodology and findings (thus sticking to facts), would be a useful guide for members of the forum. Did the installation company get a chance to respond to the findings of the investigation?

@chickenbig, we've taken the piece down to let Groundtherm respond. I'm not sure that they will, but we'll see.

I have already edited the article down to be solely factual and will now wait to see what Groundtherm have to say.

Posted by: @editor

↑

I have already edited the article down to be solely factual and will now wait to see what Groundtherm have to say.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this!

Oh dear, censorship. I know, I know, but as long as you are sure of your facts, and that is an absolute requirement, you need have no fear of libel (see the legislation here). I haven't had a chance to read the original version (I take it the current one I can see isn't the original version), but if it met the absolute requirement, I would have let it stand, and then actively encouraged the company involved to respond.

It is also worth noting that 'honest opinion' is also a defence, as long as it is made clear it is such (ie this is not a fact, but a statement of my opinion) and is reasonable, ie an honest person (such as the person on the Clapham omnibus) could have reasonably held the opinion based on the facts. Wild assertions on the other hand are bad news.

A key function of a free press (which includes fora like this one and all their contents) is to hold all the powers that be, from the top of government to the meanest of commercial interests, to account. To be able to do that, it has to be able to publish what some will find to be uncomfortable reading.    

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

Oh dear, censorship. I know, I know, but as long as you are sure of your facts, and that is an absolute requirement, you need have no fear of libel (see the legislation here). I haven't had a chance to read the original version (I take it the current one I can see isn't the original version), but if it met the absolute requirement, I would have let it stand, and then actively encouraged the company involved to respond.

It is also worth noting that 'honest opinion' is also a defence, as long as it is made clear it is such (ie this is not a fact, but a statement of my opinion) and is reasonable, ie an honest person (such as the person on the Clapham omnibus) could have reasonably held the opinion based on the facts. Wild assertions on the other hand are bad news.

A key function of a free press (which includes fora like this one and all their contents) is to hold all the powers that be, from the top of government to the meanest of commercial interests, to account. To be able to do that, it has to be able to publish what some will find to be uncomfortable reading.    

The problem is, it's normally the site owner who is on the hook and the person who will end up being sued.  The free press has expensive lawyers to advise them on such matters.  I don't know, but I assume @editor hasn't.  You may well be correct but I don't blame Mars for being cautious.  

Edit - just read it - this is the cut down version!!??? It still completely trashes the company and individual involved.  

@kev-m - I've done a fair amount of writing in my time, and some of it has been close to the bone, meaning I have to know about libel, and yes it is a minefield, and even the thought of a letter from the other side's solicitors is enough to turn one's brain into putty. The thing that gets my goat is the chilling effect such possibilities have, leading in effect to self-censorship, which is perfect for the other side, but bad for the rest of us. Of course I understand @editor's caution, and I also salute him for leaving the current version, which doesn't mince it's words.

The current law does allow truth to be an absolute defence. If you can show that the facts you claim are true, it's game over for the other side. Not even worth them taking you to court, and very foolish of them if they try. I am sure @heacol has been very careful to document all the facts very thoroughly.

I am sure if there is any unacceptable heavy breathing from the other side then they will soon find out that we are quite the little community here on the forum, and we will make it abundantly clear we are not going to put up with any corporate/authoritarian bullying, wherever it comes from. 

I come from a publishing and editorial background and this is a tread lightly moment. What I found interesting was the speed and co-ordination in which we were contacted. Not only that, it was the heads of major organisations that made contact. The tone was polite and respectful, acknowledging issues that do exist in the industry, but one has to read between the lines. It was also interesting to see how they rallied – I have shared posts from these forums with the very same organisations about horrific installations to get their assistance, and it's been deafening silence in every instance... then one of their own is identified and called out by another installer (with the same accreditations) and it's been a frenzy. 

While heacol has taken precautionary measures from his end, information (whether it is true or not is another matter) has been shared me with to present the installer's side of the story – not directly from the installer, but via proxy. I feel obligated to hear from them and to present their side. This is why the post has been pulled.   

@kev-m - not sure which version you saw (maybe it was cached) but there are no personal details barring the name of the company involved in the edited version. The entire final section has been deleted. I've just signed in and seen the "old" cached version too... but that's not the version that will appear if we get a reply from the installer. 

PS – I've just cleared the cache.

@editor

Is there a spy in our midst? 😲 

Is the forum being monitored? ☹️ 

Will my comments about my wife get back to her? 🙄 

In light of this drama, I had some fun with this piece that I'm hoping will not land me in any hot water 🤣  

https://renewableheatinghub.co.uk/the-great-british-heat-pump-disaster-a-satirical-investigation