Homeowners are being misled! For years, consumers have been told by campaigns, energy suppliers and industry bodies to only engage MCS (Microgeneration Certification Scheme) certified installers when commissioning renewable heating and solar systems. The implication is clear: MCS means competence. MCS means protection. MCS means peace of mind.
But on closer inspection, that badge of honour begins to look like little more than a marketing logo… one that, in some cases, can leave households financially and practically stranded with underperforming or faulty systems, and no real support when things go wrong.
Aditya Sharma’s experience, which he initially shared on the Renewable Heating Hub forums, provides a case study that typifies everything that is wrong with the current MCS regime.
Mr Sharma invested in a renewable energy system for his home (a heat pump and solar PV) from an MCS-certified installer. On paper, it looked secure. The MCS certificate issued for the installation stated clearly that it came with a five-year Insurance Backed Guarantee (IBG). This is a requirement for MCS certification, designed to protect consumers in the event that the installer goes out of business. That is precisely what happened. The company went into liquidation shortly after installation, leaving Mr Sharma with a faulty system, no functioning guarantee and no recourse.
Attempting to activate the insurance, Mr Sharma discovered that no such policy existed. The IBG referenced in the certificate was entirely fictitious. When challenged, MCS confirmed they do not verify the data installers enter into their certification portal, including crucial details like guarantees. Installers, then, are free to input whatever they like, and certificates it would appear are issued without any external validation. This effectively allows businesses to “mark their own homework”, while homeowners are left with forged protections and substandard systems.
And this is not an isolated issue. Across the country, poorly performing systems, inflated claims and technical incompetence are being discovered behind the veneer of MCS certification. In Mr Sharma’s case, his heat pump is failing to heat his home effectively. The flow temperature stated on his MCS certificate is 45C (standard for a low-temperature heat pump system) but his system cannot deliver the required room temperatures at that level.
“I need to get the heat loss calculations done again to identify the right size of radiators for each room that will deliver the desired heat output at 45 flow rate,” says Mr Sharma. “But I don’t think I am qualified enough to take this on myself.”
He shouldn’t have to. Proper room-by-room heat loss calculations are a requirement under MCS. The fact that they were either not done or done incorrectly, but the system was still certified, undermines the credibility of the entire scheme.
This is not simply an issue of consumer frustration… it is one of trust, accountability and the effectiveness of regulation. The government urges the public to use MCS installers, but then turns a blind eye to the gaps and failures within the certification process. In doing so, it exposes families to serious financial and technical risks while channelling public funds into a system that is evidently not fit for purpose.
Some would argue that the protections do exist, through RECC or HIES membership, for example. But Mr Sharma’s case highlights the weakness of these too, particularly once an installer ceases trading. Consumers are told they are protected, but often discover too late that their protections are illusory.
The broader industry impact is equally concerning. Competent installers, those who take the time to properly design systems, understand low-temperature heating and apply best practice are increasingly disillusioned. As one installer told us, “It took me ten years to become confidently competent. The current courses are three days. Those who are competent won’t engage with schemes. The poor work we see is the outcome from schemes accepting unskilled, inexperienced people.”
Certification, in theory, should represent a baseline of competence. But if training standards are woeful, and certification is based on unchecked data, then what does the MCS badge actually mean?
Mr Sharma is doing what many consumers would never have the time or energy to do: he has formally complained to MCS, escalated his concerns to his MSP and MP, and is trying to raise awareness of systemic failure. But he should never have been put in this position. And neither should anyone else.
Unless MCS urgently reforms how it vets training, verifies data and polices its members, the scheme will continue to be a smokescreen… one that masks poor workmanship and provides a false sense of security to unsuspecting homeowners. The idea that MCS certification guarantees quality must be challenged. Because as it stands, it does not.
