The Department’s system of quality assurance and consumer protection was far too complicated, and organisations within it focused too much on their own tasks rather than whether the system was protecting consumers. The ECO schemes and the retrofit quality assurance and consumer protection system combine to make a system that is too layered, fragmented and complicated. The Department accepts there were “serious failings at every level” and the system “has not provided the protection that consumers deserve”. Responsibilities were unclear and organisations focussed on their individual roles within the complex system, rather than taking a step back to critically assess the system and identify risks and design flaws. For example, none of the expert organisations involved spotted that the move from a single- measure to multi-measure scheme would add delivery complications and therefore risk. TrustMark accepts it should have realised much sooner that the system design under-estimated the level of risk involved. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), which accredits the retrofit installer certification bodies, apologises for its “role within the system”. We welcome the organisations accepting some responsibility, but it is not good enough for organisations holding so much expertise and knowledge to say they delivered on their specific responsibilities and instead blame the system of which they were a key part. recommendation The Department should publish an annual report to Parliament on all its retrofit schemes, their level of non-compliance and estimated fraud, and whether or not the schemes are working as intended. 6