Cowboy Energy Assessors
Thursday, February 05, 2009
‘Cowboys’ undermine quality of energy performance certificates
Some energy performance certificates are being prepared so cheaply that the results cannot be relied upon, says David Strong, chairman of the Directive Implementation Advisory Group.
The cross-industry group was formed to advise the government on the energy performance of buildings directive, which created energy performance certificates (right). The certificates carry a rating from A to F and have been mandatory since October for commercial buildings of more than 50 sq m, whenever the building is sold or relet.
Strong, who is also managing director of environmental consultant Inbuilt, says there is anecdotal evidence of firms offering to provide certificates for large property portfolios for as little as £200 each. This would make detailed inspections impossible, says Strong.
‘There is no way you could do it reliably and robustly [for that amount],’ he adds. ‘There are clear signs that cowboys are moving into the market. While some landlords are taking the certificates seriously and are managing their stock better to improve their scores, others just want them done at the lowest possible cost.’
Strong’s claims are supported by John Reyers, partner in building consultancy at Knight Frank, who has set up an online forum for RICS-accredited energy assessors.
‘From this, concerns are emerging about the quality of energy certificates produced by non-RICS assessors, about the thoroughness of some training courses and about fees being quoted that could not possibly support the amount of work needed to do an assessment properly,’ he says.
Strong says 14 different companies are accredited to train assessors. He believes Communities and Local Government should monitor training standards more closely.
‘It is very clear that different companies are applying different accreditation standards,’ he says. ‘There are serious flaws in the quality assurance framework for energy assessors, leading to some very questionable results.’
A spokesman for Communities and Local Government denied the claims: ‘Robust quality assurance measures have been incorporated into the design and production of energy performance certificates, and government-approved accreditation schemes monitor the assessments themselves as well as the quality of energy assessors.’
Some energy performance certificates are being prepared so cheaply that the results cannot be relied upon, says David Strong, chairman of the Directive Implementation Advisory Group.
The cross-industry group was formed to advise the government on the energy performance of buildings directive, which created energy performance certificates (right). The certificates carry a rating from A to F and have been mandatory since October for commercial buildings of more than 50 sq m, whenever the building is sold or relet.
Strong, who is also managing director of environmental consultant Inbuilt, says there is anecdotal evidence of firms offering to provide certificates for large property portfolios for as little as £200 each. This would make detailed inspections impossible, says Strong.
‘There is no way you could do it reliably and robustly [for that amount],’ he adds. ‘There are clear signs that cowboys are moving into the market. While some landlords are taking the certificates seriously and are managing their stock better to improve their scores, others just want them done at the lowest possible cost.’
Strong’s claims are supported by John Reyers, partner in building consultancy at Knight Frank, who has set up an online forum for RICS-accredited energy assessors.
‘From this, concerns are emerging about the quality of energy certificates produced by non-RICS assessors, about the thoroughness of some training courses and about fees being quoted that could not possibly support the amount of work needed to do an assessment properly,’ he says.
Strong says 14 different companies are accredited to train assessors. He believes Communities and Local Government should monitor training standards more closely.
‘It is very clear that different companies are applying different accreditation standards,’ he says. ‘There are serious flaws in the quality assurance framework for energy assessors, leading to some very questionable results.’
A spokesman for Communities and Local Government denied the claims: ‘Robust quality assurance measures have been incorporated into the design and production of energy performance certificates, and government-approved accreditation schemes monitor the assessments themselves as well as the quality of energy assessors.’
