DEAP/BER Issues (Merged)

No6 wrote: »

There is an inconsistency but personally I think the SEI have realised that having no qualification requirement for assessors for new build was a big mistake and it could result in a low standard of assessment

Thats fair enough. However, some people invested time and money in the process at the initial stage. It is absolutely ridiculous if I can remain a 'registered ber assessor for new build' - and not for existing build. In reality, it should be the other way round (or of course, they should have insisted on this standard from the start and that would have been fine). I deliberately - and quite quickly - backed out of offering a service for new build. Reason being, I will NOT offer a substandard service (regardless of what i get involved in) - and given the pathetic standard of the initial courses (perhaps they improved), it left me in no position to offer customers a professional service. Without industry experience (never mind a construction studies course under the belt), I cannot see how anyone could offer a proper service.
Furthermore, they couldnt even assist me in getting their buggy software working on my xp (as in what the majority of the planets population still use) pc.
I am a HER qualified assessor for existing build from a few years back. The ironic thing is that there is much less need for previous qualifications when assessing existing build. I would say that whichever assessors pay the most attention to detail will get the most accurate results.
I don't think its outside the realms of possibility that SEI are in a claims situation here.

splurge wrote: »

It was always my understanding that formal qualifications were and are required

That was your understanding. The reality is clearly quite different. For the first 50 assessors, their suitability was determined following an interview with the SEI appointed trainer.

splurge wrote: »

If there are a large number of registered assessors who have no formal qualifications I think this is a matter which should be addressed and rectified between the SEI and the training providers and that the 'Registered Assessors with no formal prequalifications should be struck off the register.

Given the point I made above, do you consider that a fair course of action to take?? - because I certainly don't!

splurge wrote: »

I don't believe they could possibly competantly provide the necessary technical background required to accurately prepare and complete a BER assessment of a dwelling either new or existing.

Given the 'training' offered for the initial New build assessment, I agree. It was the main reason I immmediately withdrew my services without having dissappointed any customers. (And if I hadnt done it for this reason, there were a couple of others that would have resulted in me withdrawing participation).
With regard to existing build, I disagree. As previously stated, I carried out the HER training in the UK for existing buildings. The version that SEI will be launching is unlikely to be much different. Given my experience, I don't think that any formal background qualification (whilst it would be beneficial) - is required. As stated in my previous post, the BER Assessor for exisiting build who allocates the time necessary to carry out a detailed survey - and who pays attention to detail - will provide the most accurate assessment.

splurge wrote: »

I also believe the course providers should be seriously reprimanded by the SEI for permitting such people to participate in the course in the first instance.

I think you'll find that negligence does not soley rest with the service providers. On reflection, I think you'll find that the bulk of it lies with the authority responsible for this whole scheme.

As stated in my previous post, nobody would have had any issue if it was clear from day one that previous construction related formal qualifcations were a prerequisite. However, that is not the case.
I can tell you that as a matter of principal, IF I am prevented from participating in the second phase of this scheme on this basis, I will be pursueing those responsible for costs at the very least.

splurge wrote: »

I dont think 'fair' comes into it. The educational requirements were clearly advertised for all to see before they participated in a training programme.

Sorry, but your wrong. This was added at a later stage. This was NOT the criteria when the initial (and by initial, I mean the first two courses) courses were put in place.
As I said, I (or anyone else for that matter) would have had no problem if this WAS set out as a prerequiste at the VERY start.

splurge wrote: »

Despite your passing a course that you undertook, It should be necessary to prove to the SEI that the the minimum standards of the level of prior education required have ben obtained prior to registration as a BER assessor.

Suitability had to be established prior to that course and registration. This parameter was established by SEI in conjunction with the service provider they used at that initial stage.

splurge wrote: »

What isn't 'fair' is that the suitably qualified BER assessors are left competing with the milkman, the postman, the breadman and the candle stick maker to provide what is inteded to be a professional technically competent assessment of the energy performance of a dwelling

Now we are getting to the heart of your concerns are we not
As I outlined earlier, I agree when it comes to 'New Build'. However, I would contend that as it stands right now, I am amongst a handful of people who have had any training on assessment of existing build - probably even yourself? Furthermore, fact is that there is a wealth of knowledge - from those who have had a hands on role in the house building trade - who are clearly well capable (with a good intensive course under their belts) of carrying out accurate assessments. In fact, in comparison with someone holding a piece of paper and NO industry experience, I would say they are MORE qualified.

splurge wrote: »

I cannot see how responsibility lies with the SEI other than they initially registered unsuitable people - a decision I hope is reversed and I suspect will be rectified with the not so distant future - The prequalifications were made clear to all from the start - maybe you didnt read the material on the SEI website - the course providers should ensure that the participants are suitably qualified.

But of course responsibility lies with the SEI. And your gripe outlined above should be addressed at them too - not other people who were only working within the guidelines/process that had been established by the SEI.

topcatcbr wrote: »

The tender doc i got asked me to bid on an hourly rate allowing 4 hrs for each dwelling to include your travell time but excluding vat.

I did so giving what i thought was a fair rate.
they didnt offer anything.

Regarding the Home Pilot Insulation Scheme...

I sat down and worked out what I thought was a fair rate; my accountant was involved in this work also. I submitted my application. I have all the necessary qualifications and relevant experience so I was pretty confident on getting on the initial panel.

I missed out on the initial panel, as my costs were 'too high' I was told. I questioned SEI on this and I was basically told that my prices were off the marks to what was expected. Personally I think that some assessors have not priced this work correctly and to be honest it would not be worth doing the work at the prices that we being suggested.

The danger is that the scheme will run into problems if the pricing is wrong.

That’s my two pennies worth!