by Mars – 16 January 2026 – Originally posted at Renewable Heating Hub

An extensive cache of documents, call recordings, technical reports and regulatory correspondence shared with Renewable Heating Hub suggests that, in this detailed and well-evidenced recent case, the safeguards designed to protect homeowners failed at every stage. These are issues we have repeatedly raised over several years, and this case (one of the most comprehensively documented we have reviewed) indicates that despite sustained warnings, little has changed. The oversight system remains ineffective, with the bodies tasked with enforcing standards appearing either unwilling or unable to intervene.

The material is so extensive, and the allegations so serious, that the homeowner has formally framed the matter not as a dispute, but as a whistleblowing disclosure. That disclosure was submitted directly to senior figures at the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), including its Chief Executive, Ian Rippin.

At the time of writing, the case remains unresolved.

The installation in question was funded under ECO4, the government-backed programme intended to reduce fuel poverty and accelerate the rollout of low-carbon heating. Like many households targeted by the scheme, the homeowner placed trust in the assurances provided by accredited installers and certification marks that promised compliance with rigorous standards.

According to the evidence reviewed, that trust was misplaced.

The documentation indicates that, prior to installation, no compliant heat pump design pack was provided. There was no room-by-room heat loss calculation to BS EN 12831-1, no declared design flow temperature, no emitter schedule and no pre-sale performance estimate compliant with MCS 031, despite definitive claims being made about running costs and system performance.

Those documents are not optional. They sit at the heart of MIS 3005-D, the standard governing heat pump design and installation. Without them, there is no auditable basis on which a system can be said to be correctly specified.

Yet the installation proceeded.

What followed was a cascade of problems. Heat emitters were replaced on multiple occasions. Heat loss calculations were revised repeatedly (in one instance increasing by more than 60 per cent long after installation) fundamentally altering the assumptions under which the system had been sold. Performance fell significantly short of what had been promised on the MCS certificate issued at commissioning.

At the same time, a solar PV installation carried out as part of the same project later revealed serious structural issues with the roof. Independent assessments indicated pre-existing defects that should have triggered further investigation before panels were mounted. Instead, the property suffered severe consequential damage, narrowly avoiding catastrophic failure.

None of this is disputed as opinion. It is documented in reports, photographs, emails and call transcripts.

The most troubling aspect of the case is not the technical failure itself, but what happened next.

The homeowner pursued every route available. Complaints were raised with the installer, with scheme administrators, with consumer codes, with ADR bodies and with certification organisations. When those processes stalled, the homeowner escalated further. 

In September 2025, a formal whistleblowing disclosure was sent to MCS compliance and enforcement, copied to multiple public-interest bodies and addressed directly to Ian Rippin. It set out, in precise detail, alleged breaches of MIS 3005-D, MCS 031, MIS 3002, MCS 012 and MCS 001, the very rules MCS exists to uphold.

The letter did not ask for mediation. It demanded enforcement.

It requested the appointment of a named case officer, the preservation of records, an independent technical review and interim risk controls, including possible suspension of certification pending investigation. It set deadlines. It warned of escalation to DESNZ, Ofgem, the ICO, Parliament and the media if meaningful action did not follow.

What appears to have happened instead is silence, delay and deflection.

Despite the scale of the evidence and the seriousness of the allegations, the homeowner reports no substantive enforcement outcome. No transparent investigation. No independent technical determination. No clear accountability.

In effect, the system absorbed the complaint and carried on, something that we have seen time and time again with other homeowners.

This case matters because it is not isolated.

Over the past five years, Renewable Heating Hub has been contacted by hundreds of homeowners who describe a similar pattern: serious installation failures, inflated performance claims, regulatory ping-pong and, ultimately, no resolution.

Installers point to certification. Certification bodies point to ADR. ADR schemes focus on procedural compliance rather than technical reality. Meanwhile, public money has already been released, warranties are expiring and homeowners are left with systems that do not perform as sold.

In private, even industry professionals acknowledge the problem. Oversight bodies lack enforcement teeth. Certification has become transactional. And once funding has been paid, the incentive to act evaporates.

It is in this context that Rachel Reeves’ Autumn 2025 Budget withdrew funding for ECO in its existing form. Officially, the reason was value for money. Unofficially, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the scheme became politically indefensible.

One of the least discussed failures exposed by this case is the gap between promised and actual heat pump efficiency.

MCS certificates routinely project SCOPs of 3.5 or higher in accordance with manufacture data. In the real world, many homeowners report figures closer to 2.7, or worse. In the case examined here, documented energy data indicates a SCOP barely exceeding 2.2. 

That difference is not academic. It translates directly into higher bills, reduced comfort and financial distress, particularly for households drawn into retrofit schemes on the promise of affordability.

If performance certificates are optimistic at best, and misleading at worst, and there is no effective mechanism to challenge them, the entire assurance framework collapses.

It would be convenient to treat this as an unfortunate one-off. The evidence suggests otherwise.

The homeowner in this case did everything the system asked of them. They documented concerns early. They engaged constructively. They appear to have escalated properly. They supplied evidence. They invoked whistleblowing protections. They appealed to senior leadership.

The system still failed them.

That failure raises questions for MCS, TrustMark and the wider certification ecosystem. These bodies are not trade associations. They are entrusted with safeguarding public funds and consumer outcomes. When credible allegations of systemic non-compliance are presented, the expectation is decisive action… not procedural containment.

The silence is telling.

Renewable Heating Hub is not a court, a regulator or an ombudsman. We do not determine guilt. But we do know when a system designed to protect homeowners is not functioning. We have seen it happen so many times.

This article is published because the evidence exists, the oversight mechanisms appear exhausted and public confidence in low-carbon heating is being eroded behind closed doors.

The transition to clean heating depends not just on technology, but on trust. Right now, that trust is severely damaged and is only getting worse.

Editor’s note

This article is published with permission from Renewable Heating Hub, in the public interest and is based on documentary evidence, contemporaneous correspondence, technical reports and first-hand testimony. It reflects the experience and perspective of the homeowner and raises wider questions about the effectiveness of current consumer protection and enforcement mechanisms within publicly funded retrofit schemes.

Nature Society is not a regulator, adjudicator or legal authority. We do not determine liability, fault or intent. Our role is to provide a platform for evidence-led scrutiny of systems that affect homeowners, public confidence and the use of public funds.

MCS was invited to respond to the issues raised in this article prior to publication. The following statement was provided and is reproduced in full, unedited:

MCS was first made aware of this case in February 2025, when the householder made contact with our Customer Support Helpdesk. By this point, the case was already in dispute and had been through ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) following engagement between the householder, the installer and their Consumer Code, HIES.

MCS exists to give everyone confidence in home-grown energy and takes its role protecting consumers very seriously. However, it is important to note that MCS is not accredited to perform dispute resolution, which meant we could not take this case on. There had also been material changes made to the property by the householder since the original design works (including the heat load calculation) had been submitted, which meant that we could not accurately review the installation against the proposed work. 

We have worked with all parties involved, including the householder, installer, HIES and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to outline our role and support through ongoing communication.

Hi Mars – thanks so much for posting this.

Let me clarify MCS’ response. MCS were made aware of detailed technical claims in direct breach of their standards. They know that HIES are limited in their powers and not an end destination. HIES did not devise an accurate heat loss as part of their own remit, which focussed solely on the heat pump, rather than installer negligence that led me to having to replace my roof, alone, unskilled, in the wettest winter on record.

Heat loss figures were allegedly misrepresented by the installer, who showed uninsulated walls to have been insulated, in order to avoid regulatory scrutiny. I posess full documentation and call recordings in evidence of these claims.

MCS offered no advocacy, care, or support, of any kind.

When I pleaded for the most basic courtesy of a phone call. Or to simply ‘hear’ my evidence or situation, they refused. Detailed email history is available, together with a Subject Access Request, further showing that MCS immediately requested a call with the installer, received their evidence, failed to analyse my own, and took their word at face value.

Following HIES’ involvement, the installer failed to install radiators in no less than 5 of the habitable rooms. Needless to say, the system could not possibly have been re-commissioned to MCS’ standards. Frankly, a 5 year old knows the difference between radiator or no radiator – insulation or no insulation – heat or no heat. MCS made no such assessment.

I am not alone. Many others have reported MCS’ flagrant disregard for their own standards.

Which competent oversight body ignores the plight of a vulnerable homeowner and accepts blindly and without technical assessment, the assertions of a highly dubious installer, leaving the homeowner without any form of resolution save for the courts.

It is worth noting that the installer’s central argument – that they were excluded from having to properly commission a heating system given that they had damaged my roof so severely that I had altered it structurally. It has since transpired that the installer allegedly engaged in RdSAP misrepresentation, resulting in a materially higher grant payment, including misrepresentation of the size of the property as per its state at the start of the install. My home has been all but ruined and remains as such to this day.

If any inspectors / quality assessors are out there and wish to pop by, please do!!!

I invite MCS to engage in technical evidence and a site visit, rather than their own immediate commercial interest.

Please see here for more insight as to the installer in question.  The Collapse of Consumer Energy Solutions: Systemic Failure Hidden in Plain Sight