Posted by: @batpred

↑

As for funding, if there's not enough, it needs to be found.

Yes, just like funding for the health service, the armed forces, potholes, low cost housing, education, social care, triple locked pension benefits for overprivileged pensioners, benefits for those unable to work..., Need I go on, and all while the media scream for lower taxes.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jeff

↑

The ECO insulation scheme was a disaster with the majority of solid wall installations failing. Whatever letters were not worth the paper they were written on.... I don't know if these were from the LPA or the installers or some other body? 

 

Thats true, but in this case the only option is restitution because its already happened.  Perhaps thats why the announcement has a focus on restitution.

 

 

The issue I have is that the announcement is about trying to put in place better oversight and penalties for future installs because of all the issues, but I don't think it goes far enough. 

Take a new ECO scheme for solid wall insulation for vulnerable people where the government pays 100% of the cost again of the install as with the old scheme. Or any scheme for vulnerable and low income households. 

These are some of the most vulnerable people in society. Extra oversight is needed for these ECO grants to make sure people don't end up in a worse situation than when they started. Some of the stories are truly heart breaking. Over 90% of these solid wall installations failed. I would personally prefer any people in these categories who get grants should get free independent checks as part of the grant so that failures are minimised for this cohort of people. People like me can afford independent checks if they are properly designed and implemented etc. but it needs formalising and advertising as a proper option around any grants.

On a general point I fear a wild west as heat pump installations ramp up with saldly many people getting caught out. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

As for funding, if there's not enough, it needs to be found.

Yes, just like funding for the health service, the armed forces, potholes, low cost housing, education, social care, triple locked pension benefits for overprivileged pensioners, benefits for those unable to work..., Need I go on, and all while the media scream for lower taxes.

What I mean is in case inspections are being missed due to lack of funding, that is a false saving. 

But I have also seen cases where consumers lack education about what they are buying and training needs funding. I found enough good sources of info in the energysavingtrust and similar but perhaps not enough for something like a heatpump retrofit project. 

Posted by: @jeff

↑

On a general point I fear a wild west as heat pump installations ramp up with saldly many people getting caught out. 

My view is of a very gradual growth of heat pumps, as our gas/electricity cost ratio is not a strong enough incentive. 

Also much simplification of the process needs to happen for much larger numbers.  

Posted by: @jeff

↑

The issue I have is that the announcement is about trying to put in place better oversight and penalties for future installs because of all the issues, but I don't think it goes far enough. 

Take a new ECO scheme for solid wall insulation for vulnerable people where the government pays 100% of the cost again of the install as with the old scheme. Or any scheme for vulnerable and low income households. 

These are some of the most vulnerable people in society. Extra oversight is needed for these ECO grants to make sure people don't end up in a worse situation than when they started. Some of the stories are truly heart breaking. Over 90% of these solid wall installations failed. I would personally prefer any people in these categories who get grants should get free independent checks as part of the grant so that failures are minimised for this cohort of people. People like me can afford independent checks if they are properly designed and implemented etc. but it needs formalising and advertising as a proper option around any grants.

On a general point I fear a wild west as heat pump installations ramp up with saldly many people getting caught out. 

 

I would agree that vulnerable households (whether financially vulnerable or mentally vulnerable) need extra support.  I am less sure about anything else. 

Sadly this is the construction industry (I include heat pumps in this).  The construction industry is, in many places, dodgy.  It always has been and I fear it always will be.  Building regulations provide fairly solid protection in principle, but are difficult to use for the average person.  We introduce consumer protection schemes (eg MCS, Trustmark etc) but sadly they dont seem ever to be enough.  Are the people who designed all of these schemes incompetent, maybe they were but if so I see no reason to believe future people designing such schemes will be any more competent.  More likely is that bad actors are just very canny in the way they operate and remarkably adept at scamming and working round the regulations.

So how is a mass independent check magically going to fix what all the other schemes have not fixed, and where on earth are the people to staff it (who need to be top of their game) going to come from.  Indeed would it be better if these people were doing installations not overseeing them with some tick list?

In most areas of life Caveat Emptor applies, if it didn't we wouldn't need review sites, Which etc.  Is this any different?  If it isnt any different then maybe customers need to get used to finding out a bit about the product they are buying, just as they will find out about the phone, TV or car they choose.  If they dont want to thats fine, but Im not sure its possible in that case for the state to guarantee that what they get is fit for purpose, beyond passing laws (ie building regulations) and funding courts.  They can pay the fee, invite their building inspector round and get him/her to provide an assessment.

Im not arguing against further measures, but at the same time Im not arguing for.  Im also acutely aware (as I have said several times on this forum) that the british public predominantly vote for politicians who are ideologically opposed to government intervention and make no secret of saying so.  For any system to work it has to be developed and supported over a long period of time, longer than 5 years.  If past voting habits are anything to go by the probability of having a pro-intervention government in place for more than 5 years is low.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

That's an extra £500+ on the cost which even the best installers will need to impose and we need to pay. 

We're looking at something which could occur in the future here...
... so let me set the context of my theoretical proposal in the framework of another event in the future.

Imagine there's going to a General Election in 3-months time...

In your constituency there are candidates representing three major parties who stand a chance of winning.

Party-A intends retaining the BUS Scheme as at present. Thus for most properties there will be a £7,500 grant provided the heat-pump is installed by an MCS-accredited contractor.

Party-B intends scrapping Net Zero policies. The BUS grant will therefore be stopped because this is perceived to be an utter waste of public funds. Taxation will be lower.

Party-C will reduce the BUS grant to £6500 for a heat-pump. This includes £500 which will be paid direct to LPAs for each installation to be checked on-site by a qualified local Building Regs inspector.

Irrespective of how you voted, the new Government takes office and instigates their manifesto policy regarding the BUS Scheme.

A year later the National Audit Office publishes a report which shows a cumulative 5% increase in the number of heat-pumps installed in each quarter since the election.

Which party was elected?

@transparent

I think a politician would respond that they won't comment on hypothetical situations!

I genuinely don't know how to solve the endemic and recurring problem of poor quality in the construction industry.  I'm pretty sure that if there is a solution it will take a very long time to implement,  but I am not at all sure that a solution exists

@transparent 

Actually I had a look and the figures of new HeatPump installations show a plateauing and new installs are now potentially dropping... 

The current gov that I believe is meant  to be "A" in your scenarios is running a consultation and there will be changes to regulations. So it is not like they are sitting still and expecting improvements. 

I am curious as to what is leading to a smaller number of installations. Would that be because most people willing to have a HeatPump have done it? Or because people heard about issues and do not see enough being done quickly enough to address and simplify? Or not enough stick? 

@jeff @transparent 

OK so Im interested in exploring the post installation 'quality' survey a bit further, because it may have relevance to the work I am doing with the Hertfordshire Retrofit Strategy Steering Team.   Since quality is one of the key targets, something involving offering a survey (possibly homeowner to pay, possibly funded in some cases) may just be on the cards 

How would it work in practice?  

Lets consider some scenarios.  As a customer I commission a survey whether offered by the local authority or independently. 

a) Surveyor comes round and decides there is something wrong.  Installer agrees and fixes it up.  Everyone happy. 

b) Surveyor comes round and decides there is something wrong.  Installer disagrees.  What next?  

c) Surveyor comes round, decides that there is nothing wrong (or what is wrong is outside the scope of what surveyor checked), but later on householder thinks that there is.  Installer disagrees and, knowing that the customer had a survey, cites the survey.  What next?

Bear in mind that with a heat pump if its installed in May you dont get to test it in ernest until 5 months later.  

Im thinking about liability and recourse, which would need to be clear (no point in  having a survey if getting something fixed is just as difficult).

One possibility is that installers choose (or choose not to) sign up to a voluntary (but binding) code of practice which says that they will honour survey conclusions.  Is that realistic or sufficient?

Also what would the survey cover.  Is the surveyor expected to check heat loss calculations (if so how?), check the design? check things like insulation?

What percentage of people would have the survey if they were obliged to pay for it?

This is probably easier for insulation than heat pumps!

Discussion/ideas welcome

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Im interested in exploring the post installation 'quality' survey a bit further, because it may have relevance to the work I am doing with the Hertfordshire Retrofit Strategy Steering Team.

Ah yes. Good point.

I think this survey approach would be more easily accepted if it were done in two stages:

1: Survey based entirely on existing Building Regs, which can be backed up by Enforcement Action if really needed.
The Consumer Rights Act remains the route through which disputes can be followed up if problems emerge later.

These are well-established legal routes, and require no new legislation or contracts.

2: Launch a Herts Code of Practice Scheme to which Installers can sign up.

This allows for other aspects of the work to be included and monitored which are 'good practice' rather than stipulated in the Regs
At a later date it could also be extended to cover installations other than just heat pumps.

Stage-1 would be difficult for an Installer to oppose. It's what they're legally obliged to do anyway.

I've estimated £500 for the onsite survey including any additional background admin which the existing Building Regs Dept need to undertake. But that's a guess, and pitched at a level that homeowners might also find acceptable.

The initial discussions by the Retrofit Strategy Steering Team could be attended by the Head of Building Control and Area Manager of Citizens Advice in order to make sure that the scheme is attractive to all parties and pitched at the right price.

I would expect the On-site survey to include:

• Physical checks on external unit and pipework for insulation type, integrity against ingress of water and entry point into the building. Take photos.
• Check the Commissioning Sheet (Part-L, section 9.2c) and confirm that it really has included optimisation for efficiency (Part-L, section 8.1)
• Receive a copy of the Commissioning Sheet from the Installer along with the Notice of Completion (8.4)
• Check that the installer has created a site-specific system diagram, operating instructions and the location of valves/controls (9.2a) possibly by labeling a photo(?)
• Check that the equipment which has been installed matches the quotation and the initial Heat Survey undertaken on the house.
• Check the bore of internal pipework is adequate
• 'Advisories' might include:
•          - using as few right-angle bends as possible
           - air-release valves and valve handles in accessible positions (take photos)
           - labeling of valves & controls
           - presence of monitoring which can be read remotely to avoid an unnecessary (possible chargeable) site visit if the homeowner later reports a problem
  Check that the installer is a qualified electrician, that the HP has a suitable electricity connection, and that a Part-P certificate is being processed.

How's that for starters?

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Im interested in exploring the post installation 'quality' survey a bit further, because it may have relevance to the work I am doing with the Hertfordshire Retrofit Strategy Steering Team.

Ah yes. Good point.

 

I think this survey approach would be more easily accepted if it were done in two stages:

 

1: Survey based entirely on existing Building Regs, which can be backed up by Enforcement Action if really needed.
The Consumer Rights Act remains the route through which disputes can be followed up if problems emerge later.

These are well-established legal routes, and require no new legislation or contracts.

 

2: Launch a Herts Code of Practice Scheme to which Installers can sign up.

This allows for other aspects of the work to be included and monitored which are 'good practice' rather than stipulated in the Regs
At a later date it could also be extended to cover installations other than just heat pumps.

 

Stage-1 would be difficult for an Installer to oppose. It's what they're legally obliged to do anyway.

I've estimated £500 for the onsite survey including any additional background admin which the existing Building Regs Dept need to undertake. But that's a guess, and pitched at a level that homeowners might also find acceptable.

The initial discussions by the Retrofit Strategy Steering Team could be attended by the Head of Building Control and Area Manager of Citizens Advice in order to make sure that the scheme is attractive to all parties and pitched at the right price.

 

I would expect the On-site survey to include:

• Physical checks on external unit and pipework for insulation type, integrity against ingress of water and entry point into the building. Take photos.
• Check the Commissioning Sheet (Part-L, section 9.2c) and confirm that it really has included optimisation for efficiency (Part-L, section 8.1)
• Receive a copy of the Commissioning Sheet from the Installer along with the Notice of Completion (8.4)
• Check that the installer has created a site-specific system diagram, operating instructions and the location of valves/controls (9.2a) possibly by labeling a photo(?)
• Check that the equipment which has been installed matches the quotation and the initial Heat Survey undertaken on the house.
• Check the bore of internal pipework is adequate
• 'Advisories' might include:
•          - using as few right-angle bends as possible
           - air-release valves and valve handles in accessible positions (take photos)
           - labeling of valves & controls
           - presence of monitoring which can be read remotely to avoid an unnecessary (possible chargeable) site visit if the homeowner later reports a problem
  Check that the installer is a qualified electrician, that the HP has a suitable electricity connection, and that a Part-P certificate is being processed.

 

How's that for starters?

 

Thats great thanks, very well thought through

The following are observations not criticisms:  

• I think most people would only spend £500 (which I would guess is a realistic figure) if they had a problem which the installer wont solve.  So its a sort of second stage resolution mechanism
• Im not sure if Building Control are skilled to do this, particularly 'Check the Commissioning Sheet (Part-L, section 9.2c) and confirm that it really has included optimisation for efficiency (Part-L, section 8.1), but its a question that they can be asked
• This wouldn't offer any protection at all to people who cant afford £500; like most 'consumer protection' it only protects rich people, or at least people with means.  Perhaps a grant could be offered but its difficult to think of a way to give a grant only in meritorious circumstances.

Open questions:

• Given the cost, does it really solve the problem for vulnerable/poor people?
• Is there a solution for vulnerable people?

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

I think most people would only spend £500 [...] if they had a problem which the installer wont solve.

That depends on how much the prospective customers know about the number of heat-pump installations which fail or are sub-optimal.

I'll suggest that the slow-down in the number of installations is heavily due to us all now knowing a neighbour, family member or work colleague who's heat-pump journey has been an expensive nightmare. And yet they've been sent a letter from the LPA stating that it complies with Building Regs.

The £500 is at a level where it's cheaper than the costs of battling to get a poor installation put right.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Im not sure if Building Control are skilled to do this, particularly 'Check the Commissioning Sheet (Part-L, section 9.2c) and confirm that it really has included optimisation for efficiency (Part-L, section 8.1), but its a question that they can be asked

Eeek! If your LPA doesn't have Building Control staff that can check and implement these regulations, then it needs drawing to the attention of Elected Members.

Let's remember that LPA is issuing these Letters of Compliance anyway.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Open questions:

• Given the cost, does it really solve the problem for vulnerable/poor people?
• Is there a solution for vulnerable people?

As an example, the LPA needs to consider whether it should continue running ECO4 (or its later successor) if the work cannot be checked as compliant with Building Regs.

That's a scheme directly targeted at poorer households. Councillors need to certain that they can afford to run the heat-pump after it's installed.

I'm not yet convinced that any extra money needs to be found in order to ensure people are actually doing what they're paid for!

But if you believe there's a particular problem with poorer households, then contact Alex Hobley at DESNZ. He heads up the Electrification of Heat programme. As such I imagine he's keenly aware of the fall-off in HP installations, and open to new ideas.

If there's 'Innovation Funding' available, then perhaps you could think outside the box. Why not ensure that households have a HP under ECO4 also have a 'smart storage battery' fitted. That should keep the heating on during the hours of 4pm to 10pm, providing guaranteed heat for elderly and vulnerable households without using power during the Demand Peak.

You're in an area where that's a significant issue. UKPN might be interested in joining a partnership to implement such a scheme.