Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Its not the check itself, its the need to interrupt progress whilst waiting for the inspector (who is not going to be standing there waiting to do his inspection). 

 

 

The key part is checking the design, there's no reason why this has to be done on-site. The installer will be preparing a quote, the details can be included with the quote and the inspector can check them offline, while the homeowner is considering it. If the inspector needs further details of the home and existing installation, they can get these from the home owner. There's no delay.

Only once the quote has been accepted otherwise the inspector has to check all 10 quotes that the householder receives.  To check the detailed design, at the level of pipe sizes, fittings and radiator schedules, independently he has to verify the input data (because that is often where the fault lies), which means doing a  survey or at least part of a survey.  It cannot be assumed that the householder can provide this information (most installers wont assume this) and even if they could inspector will likely want to verify.  So a site visit is more or less inevitable if this is to be done independently at this level of detail.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

And those topics you mention, the concerns, they're captured - buffer vessel type and size, controls and location, the heat demand from design calcs, the proposed heat pump model and its rating.

If you say its too difficult to expect the installer to confirm all of this, to write it down somewhere, then what you're doing is leaving it entirely up to the installer to do what they want... but that means you can't complain if you don't like their decisions and the outcome. 

I think you can complain if the design is not fit for purpose, but otherwise I agree with you.

I don't say that its too difficult to confirm the things immediately above, in fact exactly the opposite, its what I have consistently suggested on this forum that people do.  If essentially what the inspector is doing is checking that there isn't a buffer tank, that the heat loss calculations and choice of heat pump make sense given the house size and gas consumption, and that there are no external controls, then I agree that this is a paper-only exercise which can be done based on the design produced by the chosen installer and a little bit of info from the householder.

Im very happy to endorse that as an option which could be made available to a householder at a relatively small cost (subject to liability issues being resolved), and as an alternative to educate the householder to do those checks herself using eg the tool on this site.  Householders option which they choose, or to take the risk if they choose neither.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Only once the quote has been accepted otherwise the inspector has to check all 10 quotes that the householder receives.

Clearly that is not workable and I can't see anyone suggesting that, sensibly the checks would be on one design, possibly two if issues with the first quote/design couldn't be resolved, may at the extreme 3 designs at most if the second option fell through.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

I think you can complain if the design is not fit for purpose, but otherwise I agree with you.

Yes, but 'not fit for purpose' is quite a high bar and topics like buffer tanks don't always meet that - there's heat pump manufacturers which recommend buffer tanks, so while they affect efficiency, you would struggle to argue it is not fit for purpose, particularly if the recommendation to use one is written down, in black and white, in the installation manual.

That's one of those discussions needed early on, between the installer and the homeowner with some expert support, to agree on what's wanted - is a buffer needed, why, homeowner accepting issues if one is not fitted, buffer vs. volumiser, or 3-port buffer etc.

I see the same thing with sizing, where a design calls for say a larger heat pump but where the modulation of the larger units are poorer affecting efficiency, so in practice the smaller unit with better modulation may be the better overall choice. Again, it wouldn't reach the 'not fit for purpose' test, it is fit, but not as good as it could be. And it's another one in the grey area, where its a trade off between efficiency/running cost vs. capacity to provide sufficient heat in extreme winter conditions and what the homeowner prioritises.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Only once the quote has been accepted otherwise the inspector has to check all 10 quotes that the householder receives.

Clearly that is not workable and I can't see anyone suggesting that, sensibly the checks would be on one design, possibly two if issues with the first quote/design couldn't be resolved, may at the extreme 3 designs at most if the second option fell through.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

I think you can complain if the design is not fit for purpose, but otherwise I agree with you.

Yes, but 'not fit for purpose' is quite a high bar and topics like buffer tanks don't always meet that - there's heat pump manufacturers which recommend buffer tanks, so while they affect efficiency, you would struggle to argue it is not fit for purpose, particularly if the recommendation to use one is written down, in black and white, in the installation manual.

That's one of those discussions needed early on, between the installer and the homeowner with some expert support, to agree on what's wanted - is a buffer needed, why, homeowner accepting issues if one is not fitted, buffer vs. volumiser, or 3-port buffer etc.

I see the same thing with sizing, where a design calls for say a larger heat pump but where the modulation of the larger units are poorer affecting efficiency, so in practice the smaller unit with better modulation may be the better overall choice. Again, it wouldn't reach the 'not fit for purpose' test, it is fit, but not as good as it could be. And it's another one in the grey area, where its a trade off between efficiency/running cost vs. capacity to provide sufficient heat in extreme winter conditions and what the homeowner prioritises.

Subject to the involvement of the inspector being optional for the householder and the householder being offered the alternative (ie get slightly educated), I can agree with all of that, and its broadly what I plan to push for in the retrofit strategy work I am doing.

On the DESNZ weekly mailing - Plug in  solar safety study.  I have posted some comments in the plug in solar thread.

Posted by: @jeff

↑

I can't speak for others. 

For me the actual visit by someone suitably qualified and not connected with the installer is the important point I was trying to make. I don't personally think a self certification process is going to work with these insulation grants , especially for relatively hard to remediate properties, including my own. 

The revised process IMHO is still too geared to redress rather than attempting to  prevent poor practice at the point of install, with limited assurance via self certification. The old self certification process resulted in the majority of the installations failing, I fear many installs will fail under the revised  process. It will be interesting to see what happens in practice. 

I agree, my point is I have seen cases where the bc inspector tries to avoid visits. 
At the end of the day, it is about paying for professionalism. 

Interesting to see the growth in heat pumps slowed dramatically. 

The committee say the withdraw of the ECO scheme funding all the costs for heat pumps for some vulnerable households has had an impact on the very people that need the help most.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8k4pek3gzo

Not means testing the boiler upgrade scheme means some money is being given to people who really don't need it, the cynic in me wonders why. 

Heat pumps are meant to be a mature technology so why are the government giving £7.5k to £9k to anyone who asks? I suspect the heat pump and installation costs are only going to increase. Why not make the grant means tested now, a gradual change? 

I wonder what the typical financial pay back time for heat pumps would be without the boiler upgrade scheme? The true cost to consumers is being hidden by taxing people then giving a few people large grants when some don't need it.

I haven't seen a long term funding plan when 600,000 heat pump installations are needed every year.

We have cheaper energy bills as we have removed the ECO costs from them, but this has had a knock on impact on vulnerable people?

I am no expert but it doesn't feel good to me? 

Posted by: @jeff

↑

Not means testing the boiler upgrade scheme means some money is being given to people who really don't need it, the cynic in me wonders why. 

Because otherwise most of those people will, when replacing their heating, choose the significantly cheaper option of a gas boiler, rather than fit a heat pump. The grant is a financial incentive to directly influence their decision, so more pick a heat-pump.

Heat pumps are meant to be a mature technology so why are the government giving £7.5k to £9k to anyone who asks? I suspect the heat pump and installation costs are only going to increase. Why not make the grant means tested now, a gradual change? 

Well the policy makers seem to think that the installation market is not yet fully mature, and it works as a pump priming type exercise, to build up a base of installers and bring prices down. But it doesn't seem to be doing much for prices, as these have been reasonably stable.

The numbers installing heat pumps is already pretty low, take away the grant and it will reduce even further. Without a grant, people just won't fit them while there's still a choice of simply replacing their gas boiler like-for-like.

I wonder what the typical financial pay back time for heat pumps would be without the boiler upgrade scheme? The true cost to consumers is being hidden by taxing people then giving a few people large grants when some don't need it.

Well it's awful for a gas heating retrofit, a simple replacement boiler is around £2k while the average heat-pump installation is somewhere around £13k before the grant is taken off the price. Electricity vs gas costs, make the running cost savings of a heat pump pretty marginal, financially without the grant they don't make sense for retrofits replacing gas boilers.

Posted by: @temperature_gradient

↑

Well the policy makers seem to think that the installation market is not yet fully mature, and it works as a pump priming type exercise, to build up a base of installers and bring prices down. But it doesn't seem to be doing much for prices, as these have been reasonably stable.

And they are right.  Currently its almost a fully bespoke exercise for every house, with very little system level productization.  There is also a fair amount of poor implementation, as you would expect for an individually crafted product (the install not the heat pump itself) deployed by the construction industry which, lets face it, is not known for consistent quality.  Its also an industry largely working in silos.

Fortunately the likes of Octopus and Heat geek are developing better instal methodologies and the likes of Adia and Passiv better control systems which take away much of the need for bespoke design.  This takes time and experience however which cannot be developed without actually doing the job.

There is no 'magic' way to do this, its a major upgrade to heating systems which inevitably is challenging.  Perhaps there are better ways, but I have yet to hear of any thought through concrete suggestions and I am not aware of any other country that is doing something radically different. 

What we should have done is to mandate a max 55C flow temperature (and ideally weather compensation) at the same time condensing boilers were introduced.  Then they would actually have condensed, and a heat pump retrofit would be straightforward.  We didn't, as a result we have all bought 10% more gas for the last 20 years than we needed to, and we are now facing the downside of our very British short term, instant win, approach to almost everything.

Why homeowners are not buying. Article from 9th July 2026.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/reasons-why-homeowners-arent-buying-heat-pumps-aZ85s1b6S4zm

There's an odd comment made by Which? in that article in Section 2:

This lack of confidence meant some homeowners worried they'd spend thousands of pounds only to end up with a system that didn't perform properly because it hadn't been designed or installed correctly. When heat pumps perform poorly, it's often because they were installed following bad advice or weren't set up well, rather than because there's anything inherently wrong with the technology.

Respondents told us they wanted a recognised standard to help them spot trustworthy installers. One way to reduce the risk is to choose an installer certified by the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), the UK's quality mark for renewable energy installations.

But since the only way to access the £7500 BUS Grant is to use an MCS Approved installer, why would the Which? survey staff even consider that the "lack of consumer confidence" has anything to do with using non-MCS companies?

Section-2 leaves readers assumpting that it's the MCS Accreditation which provides confidence in the quality of the installation. But it's incorrect to suggest that conclusion to those who don't yet have a heat-pump.

It's true that people are being put off from having a heat-pump due to poor quality installations...
... but those installations are being done by companies who are MCS-Approved.

@transparent And it was presumably one of those MCS accredited installers who overtightened the ties on the heat pump pipe insulation. Toodles.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Section-2 leaves readers assumpting that it's the MCS Accreditation which provides confidence in the quality of the installation. But it's incorrect to suggest that conclusion to those who don't yet have a heat-pump.

It's true that people are being put off from having a heat-pump due to poor quality installations...
... but those installations are being done by companies who are MCS-Approved.

I agree, the article is naive in many respects. Which? should be more careful when encouraging people to do the right thing..