Is the REAL Assurance Scheme really a useless waste of money for customers?

[GT6]

Having read other posts about peoples’ opinion of REAL, here is the experience of a customer.

After trying unsuccessfully for over a month to get the installer to come and investigate issues with our PV installation, I finally resorted to the comfort and assurance we, as customers, are apparently given by MCS certification and REAL membership when buying a system and the REAL Assurance Scheme Insurance Backed Guarantee we purchase to protect ourselves after the installation.

6th Feb contact both MCS and REAL regarding issue via their websites.

9th Feb, reply from MCS, who pass the onus on to the Certification Body (Benchmark in this case) ‘who have the power to remove the installer's MCS certification’ and suggest I contact them. (don't MCS have the power to remove their certification??)

8th March - response from REAL saying they are looking in to the issue.

16th March - reply from REAL saying that they have been unable to contact the installer who has now had its MCS certification and REAL membership withdrawn. No suggestions on how to proceed, so I reply, pursuing the issue.

19th march - reply from REAL suggesting that I contact Benchmark! who could suggest an electrician I could pay to come out and investigate.

2nd April - Contact Benchmark who say that their powers only extend to suspending an installer's MCS certification and that I need to contact REAL. Pass this information back to REAL.

26th April - no response from REAL. Contact QANW who provide the insurance for the assurance(!) who refuse to send me a claim form unless I can prove that the installer has ceased trading - and that I need to contact REAL for them to tell QANW that the installer has ceased trading. If they don't have MCS or REAL membership then how can they trade? No, they have to be struck off the Companies house register - but they're not listed at Companies House - ah, but the parent company is and that's showing as still active.

So I call REAL and speak to someone (yes, really, after several attempts and waiting an age someone did eventually answer the phone). One of the comments they make is that 'it's difficult when a company ceases trading' - er, isn't that part of the raison d'etre of the REAL Assurance scheme? on their website it states:
"The scheme will also protect the written workmanship guarantee that they provide you with once the installation is complete, just in case they cease to trade while the guarantee is still valid."

26th April - Response from REAL saying that they have spoken with QANW and that they will be sending me a claim form.

11th May - nothing heard or received from QANW so give REAL a nudge.

16th May - Claim form arrives from QANW which includes the question 'Has the defect occurred within the last 30 days?' and further on a reminder 'Remember, this is a defect that has occurred within the last 30 days'
If a defect becomes apparent and the installer has ceased to trade then the administrator for the insurance must be advised within 30 days.

So, you can't claim if the installer (or parent company) is still trading (even if not in PV installations) and they will probably wriggle out of accepting the claim if you haven't advised them within 30 days of the defect occurring that the installer has ceased to trade, even if they themselves can't find out, or in this case won't find out for themselves but need somebody else to tell them!

Seems to me as a customer that the safety net and assurance we are given is full of very large holes for us to fall through, that MCS, REAL the ccertification body and insurer pass the buck to each other (sometimes in circles!) and the end provider of the insurance is happily taking £35 a time off of thousands of misled customers for a policy that they are very unlikely to pay out on.

 

[Gavin A]

that 30 day thing should be struck off as being an unfair term if they're going to mess you about like this. I'd send it in with a detailed timeline, as above, cross out the 30 day bit and put a note on explaining that you view this as being an unfair term under the unfair terms regulations, and expect the insurance company to cover it's liabilities in this case.

Also, I'd go and see trading standards, as the company shouldn't escape it's liabilities and continue to trade in this manner.

 

[prof. popkiss]

The appalling situation that you find yourself in only serves to reinforce the apparent general opinion of REAL and MCS on this forum. Whether or not anyone in these organisations ever reads the many criticisms made against them, I don't ever remember reading an official response in defence of their seemingly toothless role.

 

[SRE]

GT6 - you have my sympathy - I thought it was only the installers that were being stiched up by REAL and MCS!

 

[dansk]

its all wrong, as an installer if we dont have certain conditons and terms we get jumped on from a great height, but when there is a genuine cause they just can not be bothered, it just another tax in disguise, its shameful - you shouldnt expect anything else when there is no competition, REAL is the only scheme out there - and MCS is a load of bull.

 

[whinmoor]

What's the actual "issue" with the PV installation? If you tell us about the problem, we might be able to put our collective heads together and produce a solution or advice on how to proceed. If a fault is visible, photos would be helpful. It might be quicker, easier and cheaper than the hassle of going down the MCS/REAL/Benchmark route. There are some pretty experienced guys on this forum so we may have encountered your issue before.

As stated, MCS and REAL give the impression that the industry has a degree of regulation but when they are put to the test, they often seem incapable of responding appropriately.

 

[SolarCity]

Out of interest, what are the issues with your PV installation?

 

[Gavin A]

insurance should cover the costs, then attempt to recoup them from the installer IMO if they're still in business. The customer should not be left with problems.

btw GT6, you could do worse than post up where in the country you are. Someone might be prepared to assist for the goodwill etc.

 

[GT6]

Thanks for your replies. I purposely haven't stated the system issue as I wanted the thread to be about the Assurance issue and not branch off in to the PV problem, though I am grateful for the offers of assistance.

I am going to pursue the insurance claim out of principle and will get a couple of local companies to investigate and quote for remedial work (they require two quotes if the work is to be over £500).

I am in East Sussex if anyone is local and would like to offer to quote.

 

[Earthstore]

GT6, this is just a thought, if you can decide who is liable, REAL. MCS, Benchmark, the company that is still trading? Why not start a claim through the small claims court, it costs very little, and when court papers arrive on someones desk it tends to get them moving.
You may remember that the Government are not too successful when it comes to court cases.

Good luck, and keep us informed.

 

[Somecamel]

I am from East Sussex GT6- I have sent you a PM with my details

 

[Somecamel]

@GT6 your inbox is full mate - need to make some room

 

[dobbin231]

I was so concerned about this that I emailed REAL with a copy of the Original Post, told them I was concerned, and asked them to comment.
I did get a prompt reply from the REAL CEO Virginia Graham.
The response said

Dear

Thank you for your email regarding the REAL Consumer Code. I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the Consumer Code, part of the Office of Fair Trading’s Consumer Codes Approval Scheme. The Code is not an insurance company and does not provide insurance in any shape or form. Rather the Code requires members to protect any funds required in advance from consumers and to provide and protect their workmanship warranty. You can find the contents of the Code on the website: Consumer Guide - REAL Assurance Scheme

Yours sincerely,

Virginia Graham
Chief Executive
Renewable Energy Assurance Limited

My response back to her was

Thanks for your quick response.


I understand now how the warranty works and that the warranty is insurance backed by QANW not REAL.
Nearly all of the PV Suppliers I spoke to called it a REAL Assurance backed warranty which is what lead to my confusion (and the statement is incorrect).


I still think that REAL (and QANW) came out in a really bad light in the posting made by the OP (forum name GT6) on the Solar Forum.
I think that either yourself or a representative should post a response to this post to reassure prospective Solar PV buyers about the way these things will be handled in the future.
You should have a process in place for when a installer goes out of business and it should be agreed with QANW (or any other companies that provide Insurance Backed warrantees)
You certainly didn't appear to offer a great deal of help to the OP in this post.


I will post your response to me on that forum.


I also think that someone in your company should be keeping a watch on these forums to see what people are saying about REAL and the Solar PV business as a whole.
It would be a great way to keep your company in touch with public opinion about the industry you are in.


Regards

So there you have it. Lets see if someone from REAL is prepared to respond to the OP and maybe explain why the system didn't work and passed the OP from pillar to post?

 

[dobbin231]

Had another email from Virginia Graham today.
Here is what she said.

Dear

Thank you for your advice.

We have a well-tried process in place for when companies cease to trade. You may be aware that several companies are in fact ceasing to trade each week, and as a consequence many claims have been met by QANW over the past six months. Each situation is slightly different and we are required to negotiate with the administrator once appointed. Only one in five of our 5,000 members uses the QANW insurance scheme. Others use IWA.biz, Home Pro, CPA, REIGA and others of the many other schemes available. REAL derives no benefit whether financial or other from any of the insurance schemes, and so we are completely neutral as to which scheme they use. Our only concern is that consumers should be protected.

Unfortunately my staff are all extremely busy and we do not have time to post responses to all the very many on-line forums. For instance we have had 500 serious complaints registered since the start of this year, and resolving them is very time-consuming as I am sure you are aware.

Yours sincerely,

Virginia Graham
Chief Executive

Renewable Energy Assurance Limited

So it appears that the OP was just unlucky?

 

[moggy1968]

an alarming amount of business being done through the warranty system.
A clear indication that the standards in the industry and the regulation of those standards is inadequate..
This is a poor reflection on REAL, ELECSA, NAPIT, NICEIC and the rest.
Less emphasis on admin and more on installation standards would be useful.