When facing issues with heat pump installations, UK homeowners are directed to lodge complaints with organisations like the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) and various consumer codes (RECC, HIES). Having monitored scores of cases that have been raised on the Renewable Heating Hub Forums, a glaring question arises: who is the real customer here? It wholeheartedly doesn’t appear to be the consumer.
The protections homeowners should receive from MCS and consumer codes are straightforward. These bodies are supposed to enforce industry standards, ensuring that installations meet specific technical requirements and consumer rights are upheld. MCS-certified installers are required to adhere to a code of practice, and consumer codes like RECC and HIES offer mediation services and dispute resolution mechanisms. These measures are designed to protect consumers from substandard installations and provide recourse when things go wrong.
However, the reality is starkly different. The very organisations tasked with protecting consumers often seem more aligned with the installers. This misalignment is due to a fundamental conflict of interest: many of these bodies count the installers as their paying members or clients. This relationship compromises their ability to act impartially, leaving homeowners to fend for themselves in a system that appears rigged against them.
Our forums are filled with cases where homeowners’ complaints have been ignored by MCS and the consumer codes. One recent post by a homeowner named Jonathan exemplifies these issues. Jonathan’s installer specified and installed an undersized 7 kW Vaillant air source heat pump and replaced a 400-litre tank with a 300-litre one, neither of which was suitable for the ASHP.
Numerous installation errors were highlighted by Vaillant engineers and an independent report from a Vaillant-approved fitter. Despite multiple visits from Vaillant engineers due to the heat pump not heating the house and being expensive to run, the core issue persisted. It was later confirmed that the heat pump was undersized; Jonathan’s original SAP report indicated a need for a 12 kW ASHP. When Jonathan confronted an engineer about these issues, he was told that the tradesman is their customer, and they do not wish to upset them. Jonathan’s case is currently being examined by NAPIT, but his installer has not responded to calls, an all-too-familiar scenario.
Jonathan’s experience is not an isolated incident. It underscores systemic issues within the current regulatory framework. The close ties between complaint bodies and installers undermine the integrity of consumer protection efforts in the heat pump industry. This erodes consumer confidence and perpetuates a system where accountability is compromised.
To address this issue effectively, there is a pressing need for greater transparency and independence in the complaints process. Regulatory bodies must be structured to operate impartially and be insulated from undue influence by industry stakeholders. Consumer complaints should be adjudicated by independent panels with no financial or professional connections to the installers under scrutiny.
Without reforms that prioritise fairness and consumer protection, the UK risks eroding trust in its renewable energy initiatives. Homeowners investing in sustainable technologies deserve a complaints process that is robust, transparent and impartial. It is imperative that steps are taken to ensure accountability and restore confidence in the regulatory oversight of heat pump installations.
For homeowners grappling with these challenges, we have written an extensive article on how to complain about a poorly installed heat pump, available here. This guide aims to shed light on the convoluted complaints process and offer insights and support to navigate these challenging waters.
At the end of the day, as consumers, we have been profoundly let down by MCS and the consumer codes – the very organisations that are supposed to protect us. It is disheartening that these bodies, which we rely on for safeguarding our interests, appear more aligned with the installers than with the homeowners they are meant to serve. This betrayal of trust calls for urgent reforms to ensure that consumer rights are genuinely upheld and that the transition to renewable energy is supported by a fair and effective regulatory framework.
Fully agree, Needs a proper complaints process that may also allow for arbitration or award of costs, dictate works to correct etc. Probably needs insurance backing
He who pays the piper call the tune, and it will always be that way! MCS is funded largely by installer levies. MCS 2.0 is potentially supposed to change this but I can’t see how unless the funding model changes.
In fairness it’s not much different to any other part of the construction, or many other industries, except that MCS have essentially a monopoly written (by MCS) into planning law, at least until flexi-orb get up and running with ashps.