The government has announced a £15bn Warm Homes Plan, billed as the biggest home upgrade programme in British history.

On paper, it promises lower bills, warmer homes and a simpler route to heat pumps, insulation, solar and batteries. Homeowners, though, will rightly ask a harder question: what will actually be different this time, after the delivery failures of schemes like ECO4?

I’ve unpacked the announcement from a homeowner perspective here:

https://renewableheatinghub.co.uk/warm-homes-plan-15bn-promised-but-homeowners-will-ask-whats-actually-different-this-time/

I haven't had time to compare and contrast yet, but link to Government announcement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/families-to-save-in-biggest-home-upgrade-plan-in-british-history

From the Beeb article:

"currently the way that a home is awarded an EPC score is based on estimated running costs rather than energy efficiency, which can mean the score is downgraded following a heat pump installation."

🤣

And:

"Insulation funding downgraded

Posted by: @tim441

↑

@sheriff-fatman its very difficult comparing different houses, location, heat loss, usage, setup etc etc. 

In 2025 we managed to import 14500kWh at under 8p average and export 7500kWh at 15p. Net cost near zero.

Included 

5800kWh ASHP (heating & hot water)

3000kWh EV

As well as filling batteries at night for later export. So exports exceeded our solar production 

EPCs are unhelpful - except as a very basic indicator. Our latest EPC suggested energy usage of 35,726kWh pa!! Completely bonkers.

Just to compare, this was our summary for 2025: -

Posted by: @deltona

↑

From the Beeb article:

"currently the way that a home is awarded an EPC score is based on estimated running costs rather than energy efficiency, which can mean the score is downgraded following a heat pump installation."

🤣

Ah, yes.

The 'problem' here is that home efficiency (EPC and SAP ratings) are determined by the Building Regulations.

There have been (yet more) delays to the widely trumpeted update of the Building Regs, and it now seems that the new edition won't be published and implemented until 2027.

The major national developers will ignore them anyway.
They can pre-register an entire site with the NHBC, even before they've signed an Option Agreement to buy the land.

Once NHBC receive the registration, the homes can be built to the edition of the Building Regs which prevailed at the time.
Homes being built near to me are constructed to the 2006 version of Building Regs, with efficiency ratings being scored under SAP 2009.

If Government attempts to change that loophole, then the major developers reduce the number of 'starts', and hence Local Authorities can't deliver their statutory targets.

@transparent 

It's ridiculous that the house builders can operate like that, but that's a country mile away from what I was laughing at.

I've found the full 278 page plan here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/warm-homes-plan

Posted by: @deltona

↑

It's ridiculous that the house builders can operate like that, but that's a country mile away from what I was laughing at.

Only the big ones.  The smaller ones wont have the land banks that the big ones have so will need to build to latest regs.  I wonder when this quite ridiculous quirk of law originated.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @deltona

↑

It's ridiculous that the house builders can operate like that, but that's a country mile away from what I was laughing at.

Only the big ones.  The smaller ones wont have the land banks that the big ones have so will need to build to latest regs.  I wonder when this quite ridiculous quirk of law originated.

Yes true, but the worst offenders form the majority.

I

When I don't know, but suspect it was put in to protect the innocent and exploited by the sharks.

Posted by: @deltona

↑

Yes true, but the worst offenders form the majority

I know, the sad thing is that big corporations win, small boys lose.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

They can pre-register an entire site with the NHBC, even before they've signed an Option Agreement to buy the land.

Once NHBC receive the registration, the homes can be built to the edition of the Building Regs which prevailed at the time.
Homes being built near to me are constructed to the 2006 version of Building Regs, with efficiency ratings being scored under SAP 2009.

If Government attempts to change that loophole, then the major developers reduce the number of 'starts', and hence Local Authorities can't deliver their statutory targets.

Great information nugget! 

I suppose the loophole could be curtailed, like if any dwelling being finished anywhere would need to be done to all the building standards valid at the time or max 5 years old? I assume this does not apply to Part P? 

I had a look at the gist of the announcement of what is a "rollout plan", not sure over how many months/years. It dashed any hope of a low paperwork scheme. It seems however suited to offerings like the one we saw not long ago from Octopus (partnering with Lloyds Bank?) for the use of green technology. 

The £3200 estimate I was given for uplift to assemble a battery and connect it to the inverter (MCS scheme, parts excluded) is hopefully a worst case non representative scenario... 

As a first investment, working with the finance industry, we intend to allocate up to £1.7 billion of the facility to new low- and zero-interest consumer loans, to help more households meet the upfront costs of improving their homes. This funding would be made available to lenders who apply to participate in the scheme and be combined with up to £300 million of other government funding to lower the cost of loans for consumers. Our vision for low-interest and zero-interest consumer loans is to make a range of low-cost finance solutions available for homeowners. The scheme could be used to fund the installation of a single technology or package of measures. This includes solar panels and batteries, facilitating immediate electricity bill savings, and heat pump installations, combined with the BUS grant. We will work with the finance industry to develop a range of products suitable for different consumers and different technologies. For example, some people may wish to increase their mortgage whilst other people may wish to take out a separate loan. All products will be supported by government funding to significantly lower the cost of the loans for consumers.

Aadíl Qureshi, CEO of Heat Geek, shared an interesting update off the back of the Warm Homes announcement, highlighting the growing role of finance institutions in funding home upgrades via low- and zero-interest loans.

This is where things could get genuinely interesting for accountability.

Once heat pumps, solar, batteries and insulation are being funded by mainstream lenders, the dynamic shifts. We’re no longer talking about a homeowner paying an installer directly and being left to fight it out alone if something goes wrong. We’re talking about a third party with skin in the game, advancing thousands of pounds on the assumption that the system installed is fit for purpose, correctly designed and competently installed.

That raises some interesting questions.

Do lenders simply release funds on completion paperwork, or do they require meaningful verification that the system actually meets design intent and performance expectations? Are installations independently checked for basic design errors, commissioning issues and obvious bodges? Or does “sign-off” still rely on the same self-certification processes that have failed homeowners repeatedly under schemes like ECO4?

Because if finance is involved, risk is involved.

A poorly designed or badly installed system isn’t just a comfort or running cost issue… it’s a financial liability. If a heat pump underperforms, short cycles itself to death, can’t heat the home properly or drives bills up instead of down, the homeowner is left servicing a loan for an asset that is fundamentally unfit for purpose.

At that point, who carries the risk?

Is it the homeowner, who was sold the system? The installer, who may or may not still be trading? The manufacturer? Or the lender, who funded the work on the assumption that existing protections and standards actually mean something?

This is where real accountability could finally be forced into the system.

Banks and finance providers are not charities. They understand risk, default and asset quality far better than most of the retrofit industry currently does. If poor installations start correlating with complaints, defaults or refinancing problems, lenders will demand tighter controls. That could mean stricter installer requirements, independent design checks, proper commissioning evidence and clear routes to remediation when things go wrong.

In other words, the very scrutiny that homeowners have been asking for might finally arrive, not because the industry chose it, but because finance insists on it.

The danger, of course, is that nothing changes. Loans are issued, money flows, installs are ticked off on paper and the same problems are simply scaled up with debt attached. That would be disastrous for trust and for homeowners.

But if implemented properly, this shift towards financed upgrades could be the mechanism that finally aligns incentives around quality, performance and long-term outcomes.

I’m cautiously interested to see which way this goes, because this could either entrench the bodge or finally start to price it out of the market altogether.

Have you noticed that insulation has been either dropped or downgraded to being not very important?

I can see why they've done it, but the correct way to make a house efficient is to tackle that first.

So people will carry on having ASHPs fitted to unsuitable houses.

I also laughed at their announcement that 90 to 95% of people who had had ASHPs fitted were very pleased with them.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.