So Rachel Reeves announces it's closure, then they U turn and open it again?
Not really a U turn, just a change of the closure date. I think the last sentence gives a clue to why, and anyway its easy to guess that contract/completion/remediation issues emerged during the consultation which made it sensible to extend for a limited time.
This to my mind is right, proper and good government. Make a decision, but be prepared to 'tweak', without changing the principle, when the full facts are known, which almost inevitably occurs only after the announcement because until then others don't actually bother to engage. Far preferable to a government that doesn't listen to consultation and just ploughs on regardless, on principle, with something that, with a slight tweak, would work better.
This post was modified 2 weeks ago 3 times by JamesPa
4kW peak of solar PV since 2011; EV and a 1930s house which has been partially renovated to improve its efficiency. 7kW Vaillant heat pump.
Sorry I disagree. For the average man on the street to make a wrong decision is part of life, for the people who run our country it's unacceptable. They're not fit for purpose. They had all the time in the World, supposedly hundreds of years of experience, umpteen advisors etc. It wasn't one person making a snap decision under duress.
The correct thing to say would have been 'The Eco 4 scheme will come to an end and be replaced with another, we'll make the announcement when at a later date'.
Many jobs were lost and companies folded. People who had work done by them have now no come back or warranty.
I think you forget that people in Government are human beings just like the people who run large companies or indeed you and me. They don't and cant know everything and don't and cant get everything right. Far better they admit that and make a small course correction than plough on regardless. You would soon complain if they ignored consultation feedback!
Given that the announcement was made only a few weeks ago and didn't take effect until end March 2026, when, I believe, the scheme was due to end anyway unless actively extended, I dont understand why companies folded unless they were already suspect, or had always planned to do so when the scheme ended (which many may well have been planning to do). Can you provide the evidence and the circumstances to support this assertion please?
This post was modified 2 weeks ago 5 times by JamesPa
@jamespa, I broadly agree with your sentiment here. Government does need to retain the ability to course-correct, and extending ECO4 rather than letting it fall off a cliff is far better than pretending everything is perfect and ploughing on regardless, provided its support and rectification that’s extended and not more horrendous installs.
That said, the companies that folded within days and weeks of the announcement raise far bigger red flags for me than the policy itself. Any business that folds because a scheme is axed wasn’t running on solid ground to begin with. It suggests a model entirely dependent on grant-fuelled, high-volume work with little confidence in their ability to win customers on quality, competence or reputation once the tap slows.
In that context, I struggle to have much sympathy. This was sent to me last week. More quality ECO4 work.
That said, the companies that folded within days and weeks of the announcement raise far bigger red flags for me than the policy itself. Any business that folds because a scheme is axed wasn’t running on solid ground to begin with. It suggests a model entirely dependent on grant-fuelled, high-volume work with little confidence in their ability to win customers on quality, competence or reputation once the tap slows.
Precisely. These companies (however many there may or may not be, I still haven't seen the evidence) are the 'grant harvesters' that we speak about here from time to time. My guess is that such companies exist for almost any government scheme, whatever the purpose and whatever the colour of the government, whether past, present or future. Remember the early days of solar panels? These companies whole business model depends on both the grants themselves and the assumption that they have no forward liability because they will fold when the grants dries up, deliberately, with tax debts, and probably just after their owners have enjoyed a 'special dividend' . Customer satisfaction is wholly irrelevant because they wont be around long enough for it to matter.
Quite honestly I have no idea how any government can ever eliminate such scum completely (sorry but that is what they are). Yet if we want Government to change things (and if they don't what's the point) government needs to have the ability to spend money to make things happen. We could talk ppe during the Covid epidemic as another, very similar, example of the dregs of humanity exploiting the public regardless of the consequences.
I understand the emotion of those who 'blame' Government, but I would ask what's their solution to the human condition, which is the underlying problem. I would be pretty convinced they don't have one. So the mature attitude is to step back and say, well given that some human beings are shite, always have been and always will be shite, and no Government can be expected to solve that, how can we realistically temper the worst of it?
In the case of public facing schemes education, education, education would be a large part of my answer. Civil servants cant possibly monitor every domestic installation of whatever it is that is being installed, only the recipients can. If we could teach more of them to be intelligent customers we might reduce the level of scamming.
That said I think we have to recognise that dodgy builders aren't unique to the UK, or to the present, so its inconceivable that we will ever eliminate them entirely. We could however publicly recognise them for what they are, instead of blaming Government for the flotsam of humanity. They probably think that their crime is victimless, and justify it to themselves that way. The media assists them with this by blaming the Government not the perpetrators.
The media also contributes to bad decision making. By painting every mid course correction, however minor, as a 'U Turn' it makes it much more difficult for Government (of whatever colour) to admit mistakes, or even to change tack when material new evidence emerges. How does that ever contribute to better decision making? Of course the answer is that it doesn't , but it does sell newspapers (or the modern equivalent)
RHH is playing a part, possibly a small part, in educating the public. For that we should be proud.
Like @editor I have little or no sympathy for companies that build their business model principally on grants with little care for customer service, and fold (lets face it by design) at the first hint that the money may dry up. The sad thing is that their owners have doubtless extracted lots of money which they will use to fund their next scam and some nice stuff for themselves in between.
This post was modified 2 weeks ago 6 times by JamesPa
4kW peak of solar PV since 2011; EV and a 1930s house which has been partially renovated to improve its efficiency. 7kW Vaillant heat pump.
AAC Group Ltd covering the Kent Area for design, supply and installation of ASHP systems, service and maintenance, diagnostics and repairs. Professional installer.Book a one-to-one consultation for pre- and post-installation advice, troubleshooting and system optimisation.
@ashp-bobba, good point, and I don’t know the full story. It was shared by an installer who was called out to have a look at the system… irrespective of the heating source, that is a horror!
If this genuinely does the remedial work then yes good idea, also good if jobs are finished not left at 90% complete. But the cowboys doing some of this work probably can’t do the remediation props either. It’s always a good idea (and cheapest) to have right first time.
2kW + Growatt & 4kW +Sunnyboy PV on south-facing roof Solar thermal. 9.5kWh Givenergy battery with AC3. MVHR. Vaillant 7kW ASHP (very pleased with SCOP 4.7) open system operating on WC
