In February 2023, I agreed to what I believed was a life-changing upgrade: a new heating system and solar panels, funded under the government’s ECO4 scheme, and installed by Consumer Energy Solutions (CES) – a Swansea-based installer, which has grown to generate annual profits of c.£35m in a few short years. 

For someone already struggling with health challenges, the promise of a warm, energy-efficient home at lower cost sounded like salvation. Instead, what followed has been an ordeal of an unheatable home, sleepless nights, financial ruin, and endless unheard complaints. Two and a half years on, I remain without heat — and have endured the cost and effort of replacing my roof to make it safe for the solar panels CES fitted.

I want to stress: what follows are allegations, not findings of fact. Allegations grounded in my lived experience, in data and documents I have gathered, and in what I believe to be clear breaches of both PAS retrofit standards and ECO4 guidelines. I have repeatedly called for an independent investigation into these issues. Yet instead of impartial scrutiny, I have been met with continuous refusal and installer bias by an industry looking after those who pay the bills. For example, the industry body MCS have refused to speak directly with me, but have offered the installer this privilege — leaving homeowners excluded from discussion and ‘investigation’ without pursuance of evidence or fact.

---

ECO4 is the fourth phase of the government’s Energy Company Obligation scheme. Launched in April 2022, it will run until March 2026 with a budget of around £4 billion. Its aim is to upgrade Britain’s least energy-inefficient homes — those most likely to suffer fuel poverty — by fitting insulation, renewable heating systems and solar panels.

On paper, ECO4 is ambitious. It seeks to reduce emissions, cut bills and improve health by ensuring homes are warmer and more efficient. In practice, however, the scheme relies on a sprawling supply chain of contractors, assessors, accreditation bodies and regulators, largely devoid of accountability. As my case and seemingly hundreds of others show, that complexity can leave homeowners without affordable access to heat and worsen both fuel poverty and wellbeing.

---

As freedoms were restored after the COVID pandemic in 2021, I was desperate to escape the city and be closer to nature and family. I needed comfort and a personal sense of restoration, not a major project. But with limited housing options, moments of poor judgement (given my mental state at the time), ADHD impulsivity, and a streak of raw optimism, I bought for location, omitting as I so often do, my own true needs.

The house, however, was in far worse condition than the RICS Level 3 survey had suggested.

CES assured me that an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) would cut my bills and reduce my carbon footprint. Yet, since the installation in Feb / March 2023, I have never been able to adequately or affordably my home, struggling to get past 16 – 18degrees, depending on outdoor temperature, whilst costing c.£15 / day. In addition, CES appear to have omitted to inform me that ASHPs are an ‘always on’ technology.  This is a critical factor which means homeowners with low or no incomes are no longer able to control their heating according to affordability, their bills tripling in reality. In my case, from £1,000 prior to the install, to over £3,000 forecast post-install.

My allegations go beyond the extensive poor workmanship, which included a solar installer dropping a large drill through a ceiling, trapped and shorted cables, destroyed personal items, poorly installed insulation, an exploding water tank and many leaks. I allege that:

• No vulnerability assessment was carried out, even though my health circumstances should have made this mandatory under PAS 2035. CES were notified on several occasions of my health status, but did not make accommodations. Such an assessment is an essential component of every ECO4 install. Despite this, CES responded to MCS stating that I didn’t mention this prior to the install. However, it is simply not my duty to disclose in light of the promises made. PAS stipulates clearly that this is the installer’s responsibility. Despite this, MCS accepted this explanation.
• Official documentation contains duplicated digitised signatures — forms that CES appear to have signed on my behalf and no written contract was ever provided – just pressure to start without delay, leaving CES to treat my home as their own
• No PAS Coordinator communicated with me at any stage — the person required to oversee whole-house retrofit compliance did not ever visit, call, email, or make any other form of contact. Not during the survey, design, or during sign-off. This is a clear requirement of PAS2035 – the absence of which has led to failures in design and heat loss calculations.
• Call recordings demonstrate that CES insulated over walls they already knew to be damp and pressed for works to commence immediately, despite the risks this posed to the property. The house and roof were recorded in official documents to be in ‘good condition’. PAS and ECO guidlines are clear that it is the installer’s responsibility to correct any defects prior to commencing works, or to refuse the job – see below.
• Furthermore, no moisture readings appear to be recorded and no air test took place. A very draughty front door was ignored. And, walls in the Dining Room are now suffering with both penetrating and rising damp. Given that this room is below ground-level and made of sandstone, no strategy was undertaken to prevent the build-up of moisture in the walls, which were specified by CES as whinstone – a much harder and durable stone than the sandstone present. Natural materials should have been used.
• Two and a half external walls were left uninsulated because insulating them would have blocked access to small rooms, where the doorways sit tight against the walls. CES stated that I — the homeowner — “opted not to include” these walls. However, the truth is, no competent PAS design would place insulation as a barrier to room entry. To make matters worse, CES have refused to update the PAS design or heat-loss calculations to reflect the actual fabric installed — meaning the figures on which the whole system rests remain fundamentally inaccurate. This is in direct contravention of PAS standards.
• Key thermal features, such as chimney stacks appear not to have been accounted for in the design or heat loss calculations and CES refused to modify calculations they knew to be incorrect and incomplete when asked to do so on three separate occasions. Furthermore, a key thermal bridge identified on the original design was not insulated nor the design updated.
• Most walls received insulation half as thick as per the PAS design to suit the small rooms, however, these downgrades were not reflected on the PAS design or heat loss documents, further undermining the sizing of the radiators and heat pump.
• Clear breaches of GDPR occurred, including long delays (8 months) to my initial Subject Access Request, denials of information that was later disclosed, further non-disclosure, and allegedly my voice being recorded without consent – note evidence has been asked of CES, though not yet received.

Despite these, together with the allegations below, no meaningful investigation has taken place.

And, if that sounds bad – the reality gets much much worse.

Under PAS 2030:2023 and PAS 2035:2019, as well as the ECO4 scheme rules, installers are obliged to ensure that a property is suitable for the intended measures before any work begins. PAS 2035 requires a whole-dwelling assessment (Clause 8.4) to identify issues such as structural weakness, defective building fabric, damp, or inadequate ventilation, all of which could compromise performance and safety. Where such issues are found, the Retrofit Coordinator must either specify enabling works (Clause 8.5) to put the dwelling into a suitable condition, or refuse to proceed until those works are completed. Proceeding without doing so is a breach of both PAS standards and consumer protection law, because it results in systems being fitted that could never operate effectively or safely within the home.

These duties are not optional: under ECO4, all installations must be delivered in accordance with PAS 2030/2035 and overseen through the TrustMark framework, which requires installers to demonstrate full compliance with PAS as a condition of registration. In my case, CES surveys failed to detect extensive issues with these obligations – for example, extensive damp – and went ahead without carrying out the necessary enabling works, leaving me with an unheatable, unsafe property that should never have been passed as fit for retrofit.

CES also (allegedly) failed to conduct adequate surveys of the roof, claiming in official documentation that the house and roof were in “good condition.” This was not only incorrect but dangerous, and has led to what has truly been the most challenging 2.5 years of my life, after an already nightmarish 3 years beforehand. Following months of loud banging and cracking in all weathers, my worst fears persisted as each night I sat awake at 4am listening to what I felt must be its inevitable collapse.

CES eventually offered to send their own plastering team to add supports from already badly sagging ceiling joists — a measure a structural surveyor has confirmed would have added no support to the roof. Thankfully, I insisted on a surveyor’s visit, given the poor workmanship experienced to date. This independent company informed me they had carried out several such post-installation audits for CES. And, despite the alleged advice a full structural survey was needed, CES opted instead for a cheaper visual inspection only.

The result? CES agreed to pay for a basic repair of the roof – albeit one I had to organise. However, it soon became apparent (see photos above) that replacing the roof was unavoidable – the situation made imminent only through the addition of solar panels without adequate checks. The front wall of the house had visibly bowed outward, there were no longer connections between many of the rafters and joists, and the ridge, purlins, and ceiling had badly dipped.  The combination of these factors, with only a thin roofing batten as a ridge board, meant that once seen, there was no turning back.

When the time came, I was faced with an impossible choice: put a new roof on top of known defects, or attempt to address them and improve the home as best I could. Either way, the budget I had set aside from my move for essential improvements was about to be wiped out. Living alone with ADHD already guaranteed a level of chaos—but nothing could have prepared me for the chaos that followed.

Quotes for the roof alone came in around £40,000, which was everything I had remaining from my previous sale to make this crumbling house a home. However, finding a builder proved impossible. compounded by a skills shortage in cut-roof construction and months of appalling weather.

As things continued to spiral out of control, I found myself researching materials, hiring scaffolding, and physically replacing the roof alone without the experience or skills to do so. Water routinely poured into the house, during what proved to be the UK’s wettest winter ever recorded.  At the same time, I continued to experience severe and debilitating chronic insomnia, whilst tackling the day-to-day challenges of living with ADHD and autism. CES have been made aware of the desperate state of my health and living conditions on many occasions, but have each time refused to act.

Instead, CES have predictably pointed to the changes in layout to limit their liability. Yet every step I took was intended to improve, not worsen, the home’s thermal performance—CES’ own calculations confirm there was no material increase in thermal load, though now the heat is on, they are arguing against their own calculations. Their reports are open for scrutiny, and I would welcome qualified opinions. As my insurer rightly noted, all damage relates back to the causal event: the misdiagnosis of the roof’s suitability for solar and the home’s suitability for insulation. On that basis, no insurance cover was available.

---

CES knowingly relied on flawed heat-loss figures, changing radiator sizes on 3 separate occasions. Their original estimate put my home’s annual heat demand at just 5,300 kWh. Then, a later assessment based on provably incorrect fabric at 8,300kWh. However, my own modelling shows the true figure to be closer to 13,300 kWh — more than double the original figure and 62% more than the revised number. Though, in the world of ECO4, CES’ denial has proven sufficient in lieu of independent scrutiny.

Under PAS and ECO4 rules, accurate modelling is the foundation for system design; without it, the installation could never have worked. In this case, CES appear to have knowingly refused to adjust the figure to avoid installing a bigger heat pump.

HIES, the consumer protection scheme to which CES are signed up, have identified further extensive problems. They noted that just 1 in 1,000 installations are ever independently audited. In my case, HIES identified CES’ installation was so poor that a full re-design was needed. The pipework was incorrectly sized, pipes fitted the wrong way around, and Subject Access Requests have failed to reveal any documented heating design — these appear to be clear breaches of industry standards.

I feel that it is deeply distasteful that CES claim the original system showed no signs of excessive energy consumption, despite the heat loss figures and material nature of the installation known to be fundamentally flawed. This has been a sole source of rationale behind a claim that I had access to affordable heat all along. Despite this, I have not received any such data in evidence of this claim. Indeed, according to my lived experience I know this to be incorrect. The reality? When the heating is switched off (due to unaffordably high bills), there is no energy use. The result? CES refused to act until the case was escalated to HIES. In contrast, PAS (PAS 2035, Clause 8.3.1) clearly states that designs must reduce energy demand and running costs. Furthermore, the core statutory duty for obligated energy suppliers is to deliver is to deliver “home heating cost reduction”, known as the Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO).

---

The financial burden has been immense, but so has the emotional toll: often finding myself paralysed and deeply overwhelmed, correcting a problem that should never have arisen. However, my greatest loss will always be that my daughter has been unable to stay at the house since CES commenced work in February 2023.

Living in a freezing house is not just uncomfortable; it is corrosive to body and mind. Winter nights seep into your bones.   The systemic lack of support, has added its own exhaustion, isolation and a grinding decline in my mental and physical wellbeing. CES were entirely aware of these circumstances, though repeatedly refused to act.  This felt like a dereliction of what should perhaps be their most basic duty of care.

And it is not just about warmth. The knowledge that my roof has been replaced by myself, with no experience, adds to the daily worry and anxiety that something terrible might happen. Instead of peace of mind, the supposed “upgrade” has left me with sleepless nights, and an unsellable, uninhabitable home.

On many occasions during 2024, water poured into the house — down walls and through the fuse board, destroying every ceiling, wall and floor. I was left paralysed in despair, standing in the ruins of a home that ECO4 had promised to make secure.  The roof (and its attempted improvement) consumed all remaining funds.  And, with no income, the house has remained in a state of chaos, the living room sofa becoming my bed and sole place of solace for well over a year.

---

The complex and fragmented ecosystem of organisations surrounding ECO4 have made an unimaginable situation so much worse. As has the absence of safeguarding or support.

Homeowners are passed from installer to assessor, from regulator to accreditation body upon accreditation body, each with overlapping roles. In practice, none claim accountability for either homeowner wellbeing, or the outcome of a whole installation, according to PAS standards, making complaints a minefield for those whose lives are already in turmoil.  No accrediting body will review PAS design or heat loss post-install. Just as none review or enforce PAS standards or ECO4 guidelines, making a mockery of the system’s architecture.

Perhaps most notably, no single organisation takes responsibility for the “whole home” nature of PAS standards. The standards themselves are exceptionally well written and, if followed and backed by independent guarantees and safeguards, would protect both national and homeowner interests.

Instead, accrediting bodies assume responsibility only for specific elements of design (e.g., insulation).  When I contacted PAS as an organisation (referred from Trustmark), they had no knowledge of the relationship between heat loss and heat pump sizing or performance. This vacuum of knowledge and remit allows for a constant passing of the buck between organisations, each pointing elsewhere when things go wrong.

Most worrying of all is the absence of safeguarding for vulnerable people. PAS standards and ECO4 guidance emphasise that retrofit should improve comfort, reduce costs, and protect health, according to a mandatory vulnerability assessment and audit of needs specific to home and homeowner. However, in practice, those safeguards are absent.  Installers simply deny, or in CES’ case, state that it is the responsibility of vulnerable people to proactively disclose, despite being assured their best interests were secure in their hands.

Also worrying is that, there is no mechanism for collecting data on the actual performance of heating systems once they are installed. ECO4 measures are signed off on forecasts, not on lived outcomes. A hypothetical EPC is calculated without scrutiny, designed to prove efficacy and redeem maximal installer payouts.  This means that many households — especially those in older, harder-to-heat properties — may be left in worsened fuel poverty following a retrofit install, with no monitoring to prove whether the system has delivered on its promises. This is not just bad for homeowners – it’s bad for Britain, with retrofit being a £100bn project by 2050.

Meanwhile, the complaints process itself has become a full-time job. I have documented every step here. It is a picture of systemic failure that drains homeowners of energy and hope, hence the creation of Nature Society, as a vital source of advocacy for those affected.

---

I cannot say with certainty how many others are in my position, though the BBC revealed on 4th Sept 2025 that 30,000 householders are listed by Ofgem as being potentially adversely affected by solid wall insulation.  Despite this, following a referral to Trustmark, all records of a visit to my own property had been lost and contacting them for comment has since proved impossible. 

I am also personally in contact with 10s of other active cases. And have setup Nature Society to fill a vital gap in ECO4 design, in the form of homeowner advocacy.

Conversations with campaigners, complaints published online, and fragments of testimony suggest that these problems are extensive and run into hundreds if not thousands of homeowners affected. Furthermore, this is only the tip of the iceberg, as the absence of any post-install data, means that no claimed savings are guaranteed in practice and the complexity of the system means many are left in silence.

A recent documentary by ITV Wales regarding CES was removed from the internet shortly after being published, despite many tens of homeowners coming forward to share their experiences. Though my own experiences and findings suggest the problem is not CES’ alone – they are simply seeking to extract maximum profits from a system that allows them to do so. Rather, ECO4 is systemically betraying its purpose

And, while the principle of the scheme is sound, the practice can prove devastating, with homeowners’ properties and health very much at risk.

---

I do not claim to have the final word on CES, or on ECO4. But I know this much: a system that leaves someone without heat for two and a half years, is not working.

We need tighter oversight of installers. We need complaints processes that do not grind vulnerable people down through delay and obfuscation. We need mandatory safeguards for health, safety and financial risk, so no household is left in limbo. The default must be that access to heat is undeterred no matter what the scenario or dispute.  We need post-install monitoring of performance, so schemes are judged on what they deliver in reality, not just on paper. And we need a single accountable body with clear responsibility for enforcing PAS standards across the whole home, so that accountability cannot be endlessly deflected.

The complaints process itself is deeply flawed, with many referring affected homeowners to organisations such as Citizens Advice, who have no funding or knowledge to assist.

See Nature Society’s 10 ECO5 Demands here >

---

It is not easy to make public allegations against a company the size of CES, or to criticise an entire system of oversight. But, silence helps no one. I am speaking out because many others appear to have similar experiences and these deep and systemic injustices must be meaningfully heard and addressed.

ECO4 was meant to be a shield against fuel poverty. For myself, it has been the opposite. Until the scheme is fixed, accountability is taken, and safeguards in PAS and ECO4 guidance are properly enforced, others will continue to find themselves, like me, left in the cold.

Nature Society was created to ensure that no homeowner is worse off as a result of a retrofit grant.