CONSUMER NETWORK FOR SCOTLAND MEETING
Wednesday 17 September 2025
10:00 – 12:30
Edinburgh, Consumer Scotland Offices
Present:
Consumer Scotland – David Wilson (Chair); Sam Ghibaldan; Andy Murphy; Craig McClue
Advice Direct Scotland – Pam Stewart
Chartered Trading Standards Institute – Tony McAuley
Competition and Markets Authority – Brendan McGinty
Competition and Markets Authority – Carol-Anne Frame
Financial Conduct Authority – Phoebe O’Carroll-Moran
Trading Standards Scotland – Fiona Richardson
Transport Focus – Robert Samson
Trade Alliance Group – Craig Wilson
Edinburgh City Council – Chris Bell
Apologies:
Advertising Standards Authority – Matt Wilson
Citizens Advice Scotland – David Hilferty
Department for Business and Trade – Carol Rice
Ofcom – Ross Hamilton
Which? – Tim Mouncer
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman – Andrew Crawford
Federation of Small Businesses – Stacey Dingwall
Scottish Government – Jake Macdonald
Scottish Government – Wendy McCutcheon
SCOTSS – Alex Connell
Ofgem – Adam Cochrane-Williams
Federation of Small Businesses – Vikki Manson
1. Welcome and Introductions
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting with a round of introductions, and thanked everyone for attending. Welcomed guest speakers and introduced agenda.
2. Minutes and matters arising
Members approved the minutes of the June 2025 Consumer Network meeting for publication on the Consumer Scotland website.
3. Consumer Scotland Investigation Report; ‘Converting Scotland’s Home Heating’
Craig McClue gave an overview of CS’ investigations function, including methodology of pipeline review / scoping.
Noted background to selecting home heating as an investigation topic, and discussed wider political and policy context.
Noted preparatory work which was undertaken; analysis of ADS data, sector issues, previous reviews / reports.
Challenge of converting housing stock outlined, i.e. many homes don’t currently meet standard, targets are ambitious, many households in fuel poverty etc.
Overview given of how funding scheme landscape is cluttered and confusing for consumers.
Consumer issues discussed in more detail including; EPC reform, consumer awareness, consumer advice, upfront costs, rogue traders / scams, complexity, standards bodies, redress.
Craig also covered off Consumer Scotland’s Four Cs policy toolkit, i.e. that policies for net zero should address clarity, cost, convenience and confidence ensuring that consumers can make informed, affordable and supported choices.
Next steps and future pipeline topics discussed in more detail.
There followed a discussion about the work of the CPP, and how best it can engage with CS’ investigations work.
Some discussion on where the line sits between recommendations and policy statements, and what appetite exists for going beyond this.
Some comments made around shifting political landscape, particularly with upcoming Holyrood election. Potential impact on legislative and policy plans.
Discussion around potential pitfalls of moving to multi accreditation model to a single accreditation body – this can have unintended consequences and affect market negatively.
4. An Update from the Energy Ombudsman; Trade Alliance Group
Craig gave an overview of the role of the Energy Ombudsman for those unfamiliar, and explained more about Trust Alliance Group’s wider activities.
Outline given of current dispute process, from raising issue with supplier to remedy.
Craig touched on DESNZ recent review of Ofgem where specific recommendations were made in terms of adjusting role of energy ombudsman to better serve consumers. UKG view that current system makes it too difficult for consumers to access proper compensation, primarily due to companies having 8 weeks to respond to requests, and where they do not respond the onus is on consumers to self-refer to the ombudsman.
Overview given of proposed auto-compensation model, similar to that which exists or Telecoms and Rail.
Craig outlined that proposals would see 8-week wait reduced to 4-weeks, that Energy Ombudsman would have a role in monitoring transition. Noted supplier incentive to resolve cases more quickly.
EHU noted that they are working closely with the ombudsman on the development of the plans. Stressed that it is important that redress at Tiers 1 and 2 must complement each other, and that reduction in timescales has potential consequence of reducing contact time with face-to-face advice services. Emphasised that often peoples’ circumstances don’t allow for prompt resolutions, especially when cases are complex.
SLCC noted that their timescales are 4 weeks for suppliers to resolve, however more focussed on the service rather than the consumer. Stressed important not to rush consumer to a conclusion that’s not in their interest.
Further noted importance of enhancing regulator’s role in this process.
Question around how the consumer will know where to go / will there be adequate signposting? Underlined that for the majority of people it’ll be on the back of their bill.
5. An Update on the Consumer Duty; Consumer Scotland
Consumer Scotland gave an update to the group on how things are progressing with the Consumer Duty.
Noted that final guidance went live in February, and that there has been a good level of engagement across not only the public bodies who are bound by the rules, but those who are interacting with it as third parties.
Noted there have been information sessions provided to public bodies online where they can find out more about the Duty, and ask any questions about implementation, compliance or other issues besides.
CS has also provided the same offer to 5 SG directorates to enhance understanding of what the Duty is trying to achieve.
CS has also engaged with small business and the third sector who, though not specifically bound by the rules, may benefit from an awareness of what it is and what public bodies are being asked to do.
Noted wider aspirations of the Consumer Duty in terms of the potential benefits to public service reform and economic growth.
Noted next steps in terms of ambition to continue engaging with public bodies and other orgs, and that there will be follow-up sessions offered.
Also noted that CS is undertaking active monitoring of public bodies’ CD returns, be it via annual reports or other mechanisms, in order to showcase best practice etc. Emphasised that CS has no formal enforcement powers.
6. Concluding remarks
Chair thanked all attendees for their participation and brought the meeting to a close.