Who would have thought the evil empire would strike back via the Guardian but they have a point in one sense....

[MikeSharp01]

Just got sent this link by my other half - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/12/low-carbon-homes-can-save-1341-in-bills-and-should-be-compulsory-study-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other its an MCS report that will make a load of work for MCS but I guess the Guardian didn't spot the positive feedback loop there. I suppose my view is that the basic ideas should be compulsory but having MCS do it should probably not. 

 

[ProDave]

Building regs could be tightened to get close to passive house without needing any input from MCS (I am beginning to detest MCS) but the mass market builders would have to learn how to build properly.

[IanR]

4 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Building regs could be tightened to get close to passive house without needing any input from MCS

 

Thought that was the plan for the Future Homes standard, coming in next year. Not heard Labour commit to it yet though.

[saveasteading]

I don't know anything about MCS, so my opinion is without merit,  but here it is.

In my cynical mind they will be like BRE post privatisation. 

Non expert, self opinionated, self serving bh creating standards and certification schemes that make money.

 

Like the air testing regime when only they could do the tests.

Then came Breeam. So much wrong with it.

I met them but never one who was any use or employable. 

But they were smug with their ignorance which made it worse.

What they were good at was selling themselves to government.

There was merit in what they did but they did it badly.

I wonder if there was staff movement from one to the other.

 

As I said...I don't know MCS and they may be great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ProDave]

17 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I don't know anything about MCS, so my opinion is without merit,  but here it is.

In my cynical mind they will be like BRE post privatisation. 

Non expert, self opinionated, self serving bh creating standards and certification schemes that make money.

My low opinion of MCS was confirmed when a recent post here showed a quote for an ASHP and water tank etc for about £8150  So if that is the true cost, why are BUS grant quotes with the £7500 grant deducted not routinely coming in sub £1000 to the customer?

[JohnMo]

Lost interest in reading the report when it quoted saving over a £1000 because you have solar. Most your energy costs occur when solar output is rubbish.

[Mattg4321]

MCS is a scam. What are they contributing - because it certainly aint high standards.

 

I just installed my own PV and battery storage, done a hell of a lot better than most MCS installs I see. Had to pay Octopus £250 to get export payments, but still a big saving compared to getting MCS registered. NICEIC is enough of a ball ache.

[G and J]

At the moment buyer ignorance is allowing some companies to use the MCS scheme to milk the buyers/system.  I’ll call them skimmers.
 

I refuse to believe all MCS accredited peeps are skimmers.   There simply must be good guys.   I think I’ve found one such good guy (fingers crossed).

 

Market maturity, which I think is still a fair way off, will erode the excess profits for the skimmers.   I would expect large companies will increase market share whilst there is still a high profit margin.  That should stabilise end user prices nearer reasonable levels.

 

Thence local good guys will always have to work under the margins of the large companies and generally buyers will get better value for money.

 

But that process only happens because there is a market in the first place and without the grants there might not be.

 

So it’s rather awful in places, but the MCS has got to be a good thing medium term.

 

Scary thought, if you want to accelerate market maturity set Martin Lewis on it.