Heat pumps have been sold as a near‑inevitable upgrade for households trying to cut bills and carbon, but new research suggests the financial case is far from guaranteed. A recent survey of owners indicates that around two thirds are actually paying more to run their systems than they did with traditional heating, raising sharp questions about how these devices are marketed and supported. The findings do not erase the climate benefits of cleaner technology, but they do show that for many families the promise of easy savings has not yet materialised.
What the new survey really says about heat pump savings
The latest survey of heat pump users paints a stark picture of expectations colliding with reality, with roughly two in three respondents reporting that their running costs have risen rather than fallen. That result cuts against the simple narrative that switching from a gas boiler to an electric system will automatically shrink bills, and it suggests that household budgets are being squeezed at the very moment people are being urged to electrify their homes. The research, highlighted by Jan and reporter Albert Toth, also notes that 37 was a key figure in the breakdown of responses, underlining how granular the polling tried to be when capturing people’s experiences.
Behind those headline numbers sits a more complicated story about how these systems are installed, what tariffs people pay, and how well their homes are insulated. The survey work, which Jan and Albert Toth framed as a warning that many households are not seeing the promised benefits, points to a pattern of disappointment rather than isolated teething problems. In some cases, owners told pollsters that they had been assured their bills would fall, only to discover that higher electricity prices and poorly configured controls left them worse off, a pattern that has fuelled claims that heat pumps are being mis‑sold rather than simply misunderstood.
Upfront costs and the risk of being ‘mis-sold’
Even before a single kilowatt hour is used, the economics of a heat pump can look daunting compared with a conventional boiler. Typical installation costs are around £13,200, while a standard gas boiler can often be fitted for about £3,000, a gap that many households will struggle to bridge even with grants. When those higher upfront costs are combined with running bills that do not reliably fall, the payback period stretches far beyond what most consumers were led to expect. For families already juggling mortgages, childcare and rising food prices, the idea of locking thousands of pounds into a system that may never pay for itself is understandably unnerving.
Concerns about value for money are now feeding into a broader debate about whether some households are being actively misled. A separate survey, again highlighted by Jan and Albert Toth Monday, warned that homeowners are being “mis‑sold” heat pumps, with respondents saying they were not properly informed about the need for good insulation, larger radiators or changes in how they use heating. That research, which sat alongside coverage of a £15 billion Warm Homes Plan that Unveils a major Plan To Cut Energy Bills With Green Tech, suggests that policy ambitions are racing ahead of on‑the‑ground reality. If people are pushed toward expensive systems without clear, honest information about costs and prerequisites, the backlash will not just hit installers, it will also undermine trust in the wider transition.
How research methods and polling shape the picture
It matters how these stories are told, and in this case the language of “survey” and “poll” is doing a lot of work. The core findings about two thirds of owners losing out come from a survey that asked existing heat pump users to compare their current bills with what they paid before, a method that captures lived experience rather than theoretical modelling. Jan and Albert Toth have leaned on that survey format to argue that the technology’s real‑world performance is not matching the glossy brochures, and that policymakers need to listen more carefully to the people who have already taken the plunge.
Environmental campaigners have echoed that message, pointing to a poll shared by the Environmental Investigation Agency that also flagged doubts about the cost‑efficiency of heat pumps as their popularity grows. That poll, described explicitly as both a survey and a poll, reinforces the idea that early adopters are a crucial test case for whether the transition is working. When Jan and other advocates highlight those polling results, they are not arguing against electrification itself, but rather insisting that the rollout must be grounded in honest data about what is happening in real homes, not just in spreadsheets.
Why some households lose while others save
One reason the survey results look so bleak is that the economics of a heat pump depend heavily on local energy prices and building quality. In the United States, for example, new research shared in Feb has shown that many Americans are also losing out financially when they switch, even though the underlying technology is efficient. According to the Department of Energy, heat pumps use electricity to transfer heat from one location to another rather than generating it directly, which in theory should mean lower energy use for the same comfort level. Yet if electricity is priced far higher than gas, or if the system is poorly sized, that theoretical efficiency does not automatically translate into lower bills.
There is also a sharp divide between households that can optimise their systems and those that cannot. Owners who combine a heat pump with rooftop solar, smart thermostats and deep insulation upgrades often report strong savings, while those in draughty homes on standard tariffs are more likely to see costs rise. The American research that According to the Department of Energy underpins these findings suggests that households in regions with mild winters and relatively cheap electricity stand to gain the most, while those in colder areas with high power prices may struggle. In other words, the same device can be a money saver in one postcode and a money pit in another, a nuance that sales pitches rarely spell out.
What this means for policy, installers and homeowners
For governments that have staked climate plans on rapid electrification of home heating, the new survey results are a warning light on the dashboard. In the United Kingdom, Jan has become a shorthand for a political moment when ministers are trying to accelerate installations while also promising to protect households from rising costs. Coverage of the Warm Homes Plan that Unveils a large Plan To Cut Energy Bills With Green Tech shows how central heat pumps have become to that strategy, yet the evidence from surveys and polls suggests that support schemes need to go beyond simple grants. Without robust standards for design, installation and aftercare, public money risks funding systems that leave voters colder and poorer.
Installers and manufacturers also face a credibility test. Reports that homeowners are being mis‑sold systems, combined with survey data showing two thirds of users losing money, will fuel scepticism unless the industry can demonstrate clear improvements. That means being upfront about the need for insulation, explaining that radiators may need to be upsized, and helping customers understand that heat pumps work best when run steadily rather than in short bursts. It also means engaging honestly with comparisons that many households are already making between a heat pump and a gas boiler, a choice that Jan coverage has framed as a careful weighing of pros and cons rather than a simple upgrade.
More from Morning Overview