Confidence in home insulation schemes has been damaged by lack of scrutiny

1 November 2025

Insufficient vetting and monitoring have enabled some unscrupulous operators to take advantage of the government-funded home insulation upgrade schemes, but Andrew Warren argues that these failings could easily have been avoided.

It’s not often an energy efficiency-related story hits the headlines. When there are so many excellent case histories about successful investments cutting out waste, how sad that it had to be one focused on failure.

Last month, the National Audit Office completed a study they had undertaken on failure rates within two government-backed schemes of installing solid wall insulation in homes. These are the fourth iteration of the long-established ECO scheme, run by energy suppliers, and the now-closing GB Insulation Scheme, using government money to fund the installation of just a single insulation measure into a home.

The NAO report states that “poor installation work has resulted in an estimated 22,000 to 23,000 homes with external wall insulation fitted under the scheme (98% of the total) having major issues that need fixing.

 Possible explanations why so many installations had been carried out to such a poor standard include an under-skilled workforce, with work being subcontracted to individuals and firms who are not competent or certified; uncertainty over which standards apply to which jobs; and businesses ‘cutting corners’ when undertaking design and installation work.”

But there were discreet warnings of concern earlier in the year. One public signal could be found on the official government website designed to provide advice and guidance to householders regarding products that can save money on energy bills. Up until late January, this site always contained large sections advising upon installing insulation in lofts, on roofs or on walls. But then suddenly on 23rd January, all references to the desirability of installing any insulation at all in any home mysteriously vanished.

Coincidentally,  at the same time the government also published statistics on individual homes’ Energy Performance Certificates, required by law whenever occupancy changes. It noted that half the housing stock was still rated as D or below.

Vanishing data 

Recipients of such low ratings always receive advice as to which energy saving items should be installed in order to upgrade the rating. Every single one of those households with poor EPC ratings would have been advised to improve their insulation in their lofts, walls or roofs. 

That is why, up until 23rd January, the government’s energy-efficient-home website had always enthused about installing insulation. But no longer. Now there are just a few brief words, mostly designed to point those living under the three devolved nations to “additional help”, including interest free loans available to those wishing to install insulation. But nothing for the English.

No explanation for this strange discrepancy is available. Those in the insulation industry noted that the mysterious censorship coincided with the publication of a list of 39 named companies provided by TrustMark. When the government implemented a new consumer protection system back in 2021, they had appointed TrustMark as the overseer of its government-endorsed quality scheme. These 39 companies have been “suspended” from installing solid wall insulation under any schemes that TrustMark oversees.

None of these companies are exactly household names. Nor would any of these 39 qualify as members of the external wall insulation trade association, INCA (the Insulated Render & Cladding Association). I understand this Association was never even consulted by TrustMark regarding reputational or employee training standards – or indeed the “suspension” decision.

Each of the 39 suspended companies were one of the almost 400 companies that apparently Trustmark had authorised to undertake solid wall insulation work. This is a far larger number than INCA ever believed to be qualified to be operating competently.

Avoidable failure 

The apparent lack of quality control seems in danger of tarnishing the entire reputation of residential energy efficiency – particularly within those parts of government that oversee energy policy. It’s a sad tale that did not need to happen. If we go back to 2010, when Ed Miliband was first in charge of UK energy policy, equivalent schemes were operating at ten times the size of current activity.

Under the government-funded Warm Front initiative, the main contractor EAGA plc was at work improving the energy efficiency of 1,000 low income homes every single day. Contrast that with the relatively tiny numbers of installations cited above – 98% of 23,000 installations over several years is still less than one single month’s total work in 2010!

Back then, the energy company organised schemes – called CERT and CESP – (the latter dealing with entire wards rather than sporadic homes) were scrupulously monitored by the regulator Ofgem. Of course there were occasional faults, but the records show these were swiftly rectified. The truth is that work was being undertaken by companies with proven track records and reputations to protect, all members of established trade associations.

The relevant programmes were run consistently, year after year. Any NAO reports around that time were pretty complimentary. They identified several energy saving programmes as “providing best value for money” and “the most effective means of meeting all our energy objectives.”

There was never, as the NAO is now concluding, “insufficient audit and monitoring, in part due to weaknesses that allowed installers to ‘game’ the system”.

The government’s new Clean Energy Jobs strategy is unequivocal: “Improving energy efficiency is essential to meeting net zero targets”. In 2026 we will need to see that ambition fulfilled, by ensuring the work goes to professionals. And not to cowboys.

Andrew Warren chairs the British Energy Efficiency Federation