Installing condensing boilers never was a problem for professional Installers. There clearly were misconceptions years ago but that era has long since passed. Promulgation of alleged misconceptions is seen as a device to enable the powerful to raise the profile of their preferred choices. In other words, as long as plenty of new boilers are being fitted, the authorities now seem happy to ignore April 2002 mandatory requirements.

Any apparent lack of affection for condensing boilers hinges in part on unit cost and in some cases extra cost, rather than technical apprehension. In my view the difference in cost is hardly significant but for those people who actually pay, it may be considered significant. As the old saying holds, the customer is not always right but they are always the customer.

It is incumbent upon Installers (not manufacturers or publishers) to uphold the (Building Regulations Part L1) law, which includes the full Best Practice model 2. As long as professional Installers carry that responsibility, they will make the relevant decisions. If consumers will not bite that is their business not ours.

No one should expect professional Installers to be selectively professional to suit the whims of industry and publishers. That is not going to happen. We have to go the whole nine yards as measured by Her Majesty’s Government or we simply don’t go.

There is no shortage of installers (including DIY) who will be blissfully unaware of CHeSS 2 and/or are happy to ignore CHeSS if that is the wish of the customer (as seems to be the case). However the same installers will have no qualms about ignoring condensing boiler options, if that is also the wish of the customer. If a customer demands a condensing boiler then any such installer will fit one without a second thought, whether it is fitted correctly or not.

Adoption of Best Practice can only work if it is demand led. The best sales team in the world would struggle in the current environment of consumer ambivalence and record levels of personal debt in the United Kingdom. If there was the prospect of a consumer led boom, entrepreneurs would be queuing up for a slice of the cake. When I say entrepreneurs I do not mean industry manufacturers who I recognise have made a huge commitment only to be let down by Government.

Heating and Hot Water is not ‘sexy’ enough. It may be one day if the profile is somehow raised. The subject is not a recognised icon to personal success and evidence of personal success as well as vanity is clearly what drives spending other than distress purchases.

Long experience suggests that gas safety aware customers tend to go the distance and carefully manage their whole environment including the use of smoke detectors. Others by and large ignore the subject. The notable exception (in my experience) being a sudden attack of awareness prior to the arrival of a first child, until the novelty wears off.

For those who do have an interest in environmental issues, firm action taken in support is usually determined but invariably and curiously focused on a particular theme. Obsessive recycling, minimalist living or walking and cycling etc. Heating and hot water production may not figure in their thoughts and when it does it may be restricted to thrifty use of what already exists.

I am happy to concede that one day the main engine for driving consumer affection in favour of energy efficiency will be boilers but without the whole Best Practice model being promoted, the alleged principal aim of C02 reduction will be seriously undermined. I proceed on the assumption that C02 reduction is the principal aim. Indeed I am required to by law.

Evidence of personal success hinges on high visibility clues such as, MP vehicles and conservatories. These are trophies to success in (business) battle. Heating and Hot Water is not yet a trophy to be sought and displayed to green admirers. Green with envy I mean, not environmental altruism.

For Best Practice to succeed alongside limited disposable income and in the current climate of record consumer debt, something else by definition will have to suffer. Anyone like to suggest what that must be ?

Best Practice implementation is labour intensive and grossly inefficient. Unless there is a realistic prospect of success with a quotation, the work is avoided 3. The most efficient option is simply to undercut a 3 star quotation, knock £1000 off and throw the top specification at the job once the quotation is greedily accepted. Income and reasonable profit guaranteed without compromising standards. Incidentally where I have undercut, a condensing boiler has invariably been fitted though the 3 star quote was not necessarily for a condensing boiler.

To raise the profile of boilers they will need to be visually distinctive in some useful way. That will almost certainly mean a significant area of translucent material revealing a sporty engine to be admired and discussed. The other obvious device is a visual indication of operating efficiency or apparent indication of operating efficiency.

The problem with energy inefficiency is that you can’t see it and boast about it; A brave and innovative whole new concept is required.

Notes for lay visitors

Note 1

Part L1 refers to the Building Regulations Part L1 which came into force (England and Wales) in April 2002. From that date it is required that Installers (and householders) review their whole heating system with any significant change. It is now clear some three years later that the legislation has largely been ignored by everyone, including publishers and curiously, those who generated the legislation.

Note 2

Best Practice refers to the General Information Leaflet 59, popularly referred to, when it is referred to, as CHeSS 2002. It is recognised that CHeSS 2002 contains two options, Basic AND Best Practice. Basic is the minimum (mandatory) standard (from April 2002) and Best Practice is the preferred standard. The whole subject is generically referred to simply as Best Practice.

The term Best Practice also has another meaning for Installers as set out in Note 4.

Note 3

I have not mentioned this previously but before the EST Installer network collapsed I had some interesting exchanges with their customers through this website but deliberately remained wholly detached. It is clear those customers were soaking up a vast amount of Installer time in their efforts to obtain the most benefit from a predetermined budget. Customers were invariably unhappy and confused. It could only have succeeded if Installers had priced a common specification, which is the correct method in construction. The scheme was inherently naïve and doomed to failure. Qualified and experienced professional opinion should have been sought.

Note 4

In an effort to encourage widespread adoption of energy efficiency measures, courses are on offer to Installers for a small fee and the loss of one day. I personally undertook the same Best Practice Training course just over three years ago in the wake of identical industry hype we are witnessing today but nothing happened in the media or elsewhere to enable us to benefit from that investment. It would appear that training undertaken then is not now to be formally ‘recognised’ by the people who sponsored it. Will the same happen in another three years ?