For a start they have identified people who were not Corgi registered but claimed to be. By definition those people are not therefore Gas Installers and fall outside the scope of the inappropriate headline. Which ? must have known or ought to have known some of those people were not registered before the contractors concerned were invited to submit quotations for the ill-defined work. Given such a small sample nationally (31), the bogus people should have been reported to Corgi and a more representative sample chosen, rather than a sample chosen I suspect, to guarantee favourable copy.

They apparently enlisted the help of a boiler expert in support of what is described as their research. Just because the word research is used that does not mean to say scientific norms for research were adopted. A boiler expert is of course not necessarily a heating system expert. Curiously there is no hint of Part L measures, which should obviously have been most prominent, if the report is to benefit consumers and reflect the will of Her Majesty’s Government.

That said, the logistics of creating a meaningful and safe scenario, or in this case four safe scenarios, would prove virtually impossible in my expert opinion. Only 6 out of the 31 are described as having provided good advice about the type of boiler needed. Whether that advice would have survived Part L scrutiny we are not told. Then again we are not told how the 31 were selected or briefed prior to being invited to quote. I already suspect I will discover the alleged research was unsafe because of the latter.

The reason the Energy Saving Trust (EST) Installer Network collapsed or suffered a strategic withdrawal provides a clue to the difficulties involved. The only safe method of obtaining competitive quotations is to have a professionally prepared specification detailing all work required. I don’t know of any householder who would arrange such a specification first, as that would cost money.

Had the EST adopted the principle of a consistent approach to EEAC enquiries the scheme might have survived. Not in their case a detailed specification, as that would require products to be selected, thus denying consumers and Installers choice. It would also have put the EST at obvious risk of compromising their undoubted impartiality. The correct way forward therefore is a performance specification. Identifying what a consumer needs or is prepared to pay for can be challenging. It is challenging. It is also labour intensive.

The truth is that the majority of consumers are not interested in the financial burden of Part L. I had another such case this week. I am not sitting in judgement as I have no public or private view on the matter of people’s personal choices. That said, responses to consumer enquiries undoubtedly tend to be conditioned by typical consumer behaviour experienced over a period of time. The importance of this should not be underestimated. We will all, including British Gas, be influenced even if only subconsciously, by stereotypical behaviour; Where and what were the chosen properties used by Which ?

We had a customer this year who arrived through recommendation. He wanted some plumbing work doing. Nothing that would enhance visual amenity, rather a sensible response to a water supply problem. Delightful family throughout but they made it abundantly clear at the outset, what standards were expected. They wanted a successful response at the first attempt and no excuse for failure would be accepted. Our response was expensive but we hope we have left a fully satisfied customer.

Such customers are few and far between. I would suggest such discerning customers will not take a chance and engage someone who arrives without reference. Conversely, someone who does take a chance is more likely to have lower expectations. I am not suggesting they consent to being ripped off. Far from it. They invariably know what they want and will have canvassed the neighbourhood for an idea of cost. That information, reliable or not, might influence their stated ambitions.

As pointed out above, a full survey of the standard demanded to comply with Part L is invariably labour intensive. We are talking hours with discussion and survey followed by calculations and quotation. Being blunt history shows the effort is not worth it. That is why I would never agree to quote for such work, given the high probability that the work would be lost to others. Some are known to use quotations as a specification to enable them to obtain other quotations.

My customers invariably arrive through recommendation and vice-versa. As one of our visitors has previously pointed out, shaving a hefty slice off a British Gas quote gives ample opportunity to provide a customer with a first class response, including condensing boiler, without compromising on a dignified return. Administration work in these cases is minimal. For the record, work recommended by British Gas in those cases we have undercut, has always been appropriate. If British Gas (or anyone else) choose to submit a hefty quotation, they have the right to do so, as long as the consumer is left alone completely afterwards to consider their position.

The situation is complicated by the baffling absence of literature on the subject from Her Majesty’s Government. We need a document that might enable consumers to exercise some control in developing a strategy to meet their needs. It has occurred to me that we could develop one (Part L - England and Wales) if anyone is interested so we can show some affection for fair play. If I was soliciting heating and hot water enquiries from unknown sources (advertising) that is what I would certainly do. I would then try to judge whether or not a consumer was seriously considering adopting compliant measures before taking an enquiry any further and wasting my time.

Gas-News has contacted Which ? with a view to purchasing a copy of the report but at the time of writing no response has been received. We must therefore advise visitors to make such enquiries as we would make given a chance, before attaching any credence to the report. We are fully entitled to know if the study is a satisfactory one. I’m not convinced at this point in time.

Which ? we note still adopts a policy that is not in our view consumer friendly. They have an opt-out policy on magazine subscriptions. To obtain your free 30 day trial you must supply credit card details Quote - Although no payment will be taken during your 30 day free trial, we will require credit card details to complete the registration process – Unquote.