Which means that the price of the job goes up by at least the grant.
I know this is a bit harsh but is true, The chair of Bord Snip II has confirmed this to me.
Re "Best to have a SEAI registered contractor."
This means nothing really if there is a problem down stream as SEAI dont want to know about shoddy workmanship or the like. The registration has more to do with being tax compliant than anything else as its EU mula that is being spent.
If I am wrong about this am will to be corrected.
OP: I would look at you existing air tightness, attic insulation, lagging jacket / timer on HW cylinder and simple things like this first
Perhaps I should correct you on this. The SEAI is only ensuring a code of practice and insisting that if you are availing of a grant, then the installation/upgrade must be carried out to the standards of the current Building Regulation. Not many people are aware of this. For example, if you are replacing a boiler, it is a Building Regulation that you upgrade the heating system to the current Regulation by installing zoning, etc. If you are carrying out this work, you are required to install it to meet this standard, including boiler interlock, wiring, time and temperature control, etc. It must also be with a boiler of minimum 86% efficiency although SEAI insist on minimum 90% efficiency. In the UK, there is a certification system that must be submitted to Local Government Building Control to ensure that this measure is carried out. Recently, an installer there was imprisoned for 6 months for repeated offences. Building Regulations are legal requirements and are not just there as guidelines. They are also there for the good of the homeowner and not to make it easier for the installer to cut corners.
All installations should meet this Building Regulation, otherwise the installer is breaking the law. Thus, in Ireland where there is no Building Control overlooking this, there are many poor installations. And who suffers, the client!
Even if it is true that it costs as much as the grant to get it done correctly, then it is justified as the result is the client pays the same amount nett to get it done right!
At least if the client goes for the grant, it must be installed to this standard. If the work still turns out to be "shoddy", there is a definite comeback. SEAI insist that all contractors have a signed contract in place before any works commence. All contracors are regularly audited and if found to be carrying out works to non-compliant standards, they will receive penalty points and/or struck off the approved list of contractors.
If you are still doubtful of picking a contractor from an unknown list, you can always go through the ESB Halo Scheme and still receive the SEAI grant. Your installation contract will be with ESB Halo and not the installer. Their installers not only go through the SEAI auditing system, but they also go through the ESB auditing system.
Regarding being just a measure to ensure tax compliance, this is not true. Should we not all be tax compliant and therefore operate our businesses in a professional manner. How would it look if we the taxpayer contribute to a grant payment to a contractor who is a tax dodger, working for cash and signing the dole at the same time.
Believe me, I have many gripes with the SEAI, however, on this one, I am with them all the way!