18 Months of TrustMark Complaint with No Action
The Injustice of the ECO4 Complaints Process, is Every Bit as Great as the Injustice of a Bad Installer
I followed the “official” ECO4 complaints process. This is what really happened. We believe no homeowner should have to go through this ordeal in pursuit of a heatable home. Under ECO4, profit and process have routinely been prioritised above people.
Installer
Claimed low bills proved efficiency — but bills were only low because the heating was switched off (the system couldn’t heat the home).
July 2024 TrustMark
Referred us directly to ‘PAS’. Not only was this the incorrect name and organisation, but they were also deeply unsupportive.
PAS
Assessor with no heat-pump knowledge; focused only on insulation contracts. Hugely frustrating and irrelevant.
Ofgem
No ability to act — outside remit. Filed FOI request.
HIES
Contacted us out of the blue (told they visit ~1 in 1000 installs). Arbitration limited to ASHP; no roof or heat-loss investigation.
Trading Standards
Didn’t respond (funding cuts).
Citizens Advice
No ECO4 knowledge and no funding to assist.
Local Energy Agency
Seeking support and insight
Back to HIES
Non-legally binding arbitration focused on ASHP only; installer refused to fix system before winter 2024 unless we accepted their terms.
Ombudsman
Confirmed maximum cap of £10,000 (typical ~£3,000). Install cost ~£35k, roof ~£40k, property damage £30k+ — not viable to pursue.
Back to TrustMark
Spoke with their Consumer Director — zero empathy or duty of care. Filed a complaint.
Ofgem → TrustMark
Due to the solid wall insulation campaign, Ofgem contacted TrustMark; a TrustMark assessor visited.
TrustMark records lost
TrustMark then lost all records of the visit and stopped responding to emails or calls.
MP
MP contacted Ofgem.
Ofgem statement
Ofgem stated they take installer-fraud allegations very seriously.
Ofgem Fraud Team
Confirmed they have no powers to review installer fraud.
NICEIC
No resources to investigate; refused due to contact with HIES.
FOI / SAR (Subject Access)
Filed with installer who did not comply for 8 months and then only with partial info
PAS Coordinator
Contacted the PAS Coordinator as they were wrongly named by the installer as their Data Protection Officer
University Law Clinic
Took the case on, then stepped back after ~2 months due to limited experience; recommended seeking a solicitor.
Solicitors
Can be ~£80k fees for multi-track court cases – seek no win no fee, or pro bono
Fuel Poverty Action
First real ally to step in.
FOI / SAR (Subject Access)
Filed with Trustmark, HIES, MCS
MCS
Empathised but confirmed there’s nothing they can do — no investigation.
British Assessment Bureau (again)
Stated that they work on specificaly assigned cases only. Have no remit to investigate alleged mis-selling and no knowledge of whole home systems (Air Source, Solar and Insulation combined)
MP → DESNZ
DESNZ agreed to investigate, however, appear to have simply passed the case back to MCS:
MP → DESNZ → MCS → CES
MCS wrote a one-paragraph note to CES and declined to investigate; because CES denies the allegations, they classify it as a ‘dispute’ outside remit — despite compliance concerns.
MP → DESNZ
MCS failed to invite evidence, inspect the house, or even offer a phone call. They did say they would investigate ‘behind closed doors’ without homeowner input or update. This is not an investigation – it is a clear preference for installers over homeowners, without outcomes. So, it’s back to DESNZ.
TrustMark
Couldn’t let it pass that Trustmark simply lost all record of my visit – filed an SAR and re-contacted their complaints team, copying in my MP and DESNZ.
Retrofit Coordinator
Having had no meaningful engagement with a Retrofit Coordinator over the course of the complaint, the RC refused to attend site or to respond to my concerns.
ECMK
Reported RC refusals / failures / negligence / RdSAP anomalies
Minister
Minister personally confirms that he expects TrustMark to ensure remediation of my home occurs.
TrustMark
Finally commission an inspection (though no meaningul action as yet). Inspection confirms many of my claims – including alleged misrepresentation.
Scottish Power (Grant Provider)
Claim to be utterly beholdent to TrustMark
Letter Before Action
Formal notification of escalation (to courts)
