Heat and Energy Efficiency Technical Suitability Assessment: consultation analysis

Q9 Requiring HEETSA Assessors to be Independent of the Outcome

Nearly all respondents that answered this question agreed that the HEETSA assessor should be independent (n=66, 86%). Eight respondents disagreed with independence requirements and three respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Similar proportions of organisations and individuals strongly agreed with the proposal.

Reasons for supporting

Nearly all respondents identified the need for one or more of: financial transparency, quality, consumer trust and consumer protection. There was overwhelming concern about conflicts of interest and profit-driven behaviour when assessment and installation are not clearly separated.

• Financial independence of assessors is essential to build credibility and deter biased assessments that could lead to unsuitable measures being recommended. There needs to be clear role boundaries and clarity on which stages of the retrofit process the HEETSA covers (see also Question 2).
• Quality-related feedback emphasised the need for consistency, quality assurance and unbiased assessment processes. Recommendations must be impartial, evidence-based, and free from installer or supplier influence. Advice should reflect what is technically suitable rather than being commercially motivated.
• Qualified and unbiased professionals are required to assure consumer trust and consumer protection. Consumers should be able to rely on assessments being carried out by a suitably qualified and unbiased professional that acts on their behalf. Impartiality underpins the reputation of the scheme. It must be supported by robust auditing, quality assurance, and consumer protection mechanisms. There was also a concern of a lack of accountability for the works and any redress, if responsibility was blurred between assessors and installers. A few responses also noted that outcomes should be measured to verify success.

In addition, the following points were made by a few of the respondents.

• Transparency: There is the need for a declaration of commercial interests and robust redress mechanisms for consumers. For example, a Code of Conduct backed by government accreditation.
• Lessons learnt: Independence could prevent repetition of past retrofit failures. Respondents recalled historical issues with unregulated assessments and poor-quality installations.

Reasons for opposing

Of those that opposed the approach, the most common feedback was the importance of a multidisciplinary, collaborative approach to retrofit works and emphasised that independence should not hinder this. Some cautioned that in striving for impartiality, the process should not under-utilise installer expertise. Maintaining a balanced approach between independence and technical competence was encouraged.

It was noted that the independence of assessors does not in itself guarantee quality. This is more related to the capability of assessors and potentially what they are liable for. It was also suggested that an independent assessment is likely to increase costs to the consumer and may be a barrier to uptake.