Any legal come back after receiving a false BER?

drongadoir · 08-04-2019 12:27pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Hi droung, sorry to hear your situation but i have to row in here.

the BER assessor has absolutely no influence or impact on how your house is built. Dormer dwellings are notoriously badly constructed as the myriad of junctions makes air tightness and insulation continuity incredibly difficult.

you need to be aiming your ire at the builder and the certifying architect / engineer. The assessor has a VERY strict set of rules they have to operate within to produce the cert, whereas the builder and certifying architect may have been a lot "looser" in their adherence to the rules they have to work within ie the building regulations.

ill assume your house is a new build if its an A2 rated. so..... did it have an air tightness test carried out? if its within a new estate, then the regulations allow for a sporadic testing, rather than every unit tested. This is an error in the regs my opinion as it allows a developer to focus on one particular unit and apply those results to the rest of those types of units.

im not saying the assessor didnt make any errors... just making the point that the assessment has no impact or, or is a reflection on, the workmanship that goes into the dwelling.

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes BER assessors really arent to blame because not all houses are tested but sometimes I suspect they are. My house had a BER done according to the xml and an airtest (4.7 ACH at 50 Pa.).
Examples of outright errors in the xml include i) reported LEDs when in reality there was no bulbs, ii) attic insulation only covered about 60% of the attic floor. I understand that the assessor cant see inside the dormer parts but surely he can inspect the attic, iii) not sure how a house with 4.7 ACH at 50 Pa can get to A2 so I am certain there is some other errors even bearing in mind that dormers are cold prone.

Metric Tensor · 08-04-2019 12:45pm

The BER assumes the house is well built and then progresses with calculations from there.

So if a house is built poorly the BER is worthless.

This is not made clear to the general public.

(Also - as the assessor is paid a very small amount, in a "race-to-the-bottom" market, it is not in the assessor's interest to look for, or comment on, building defects. Their only interest is to get in and out as quickly as possible whilst covering their arse in an audit situation.)

Del2005 · 08-04-2019 12:47pm

drongadoir wrote: »

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes BER assessors really arent to blame because not all houses are tested but sometimes I suspect they are. My house had a BER done according to the xml and an airtest (4.7 ACH at 50 Pa.).
Examples of outright errors in the xml include i) reported LEDs when in reality there was no bulbs, ii) attic insulation only covered about 60% of the attic floor. I understand that the assessor cant see inside the dormer parts but surely he can inspect the attic, iii) not sure how a house with 4.7 ACH at 50 Pa can get to A2 so I am certain there is some other errors even bearing in mind that dormers are cold prone.

They can only look through the attic hatch they can't climb in unless it's got a proper access ladder, I'm sure that the builders are aware of this. As said it's the builders and architects gaming the system which is the problem not the assors.

sydthebeat · 08-04-2019 12:51pm

drongadoir wrote: »

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes BER assessors really arent to blame because not all houses are tested but sometimes I suspect they are. My house had a BER done according to the xml and an airtest (4.7 ACH at 50 Pa.).
Examples of outright errors in the xml include i) reported LEDs when in reality there was no bulbs, ii) attic insulation only covered about 60% of the attic floor. I understand that the assessor cant see inside the dormer parts but surely he can inspect the attic, iii) not sure how a house with 4.7 ACH at 50 Pa can get to A2 so I am certain there is some other errors even bearing in mind that dormers are cold prone.

whats the heating system? a heat pump?
if so can you tell me what efficiency is given to the space and water heating?

4.7 is poor and yes, it sounds off for a house to get a A2 rating with that air tightness

the attic floor covering sounds a bit off alright.... did you measure exactly what percentage of attic floor isnt covered though?
as its a dormer its unlikely the assessor climbed into the attic to check hidden areas.

the LEDs make very little difference... and at the time of assessment whos to say there wasnt LEDs in the blubs? also, incandescents are on the way out so 100% LEDs would be a more correct application into the future.

ArrBee · 08-04-2019 1:00pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

i completely agree with you

the problem is people expect it to tell them something its not designed for.

i blame SEAI squarely for this, for selling it as something that it isnt.

maybe a bit pedantic, but would well imagine that it is being sold as something that it "was supposed to be" but has failed in implementation - for multiple reasons.

I don't see any practical purpose for the BER system that we have currently Even if it was marketed accurately.

"here's a rating to indicate if the design/build of a house has had some thought put into it for minimizing energy use. But you're best to ignore it as it doesn't relate to actual energy use.."

sydthebeat · 08-04-2019 1:26pm

ArrBee wrote: »

I don't see any practical purpose for the BER system that we have currently Even if it was marketed accurately.
"

the practical purpose we have for is being, is to comply with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_energy_performance_of_buildings

maybe a bit pedantic, but would well imagine that it is being sold as something that it "was supposed to be" but has failed in implementation - for multiple reasons.

what do you think it was "supposed to be" ?

do you consider that what you think its supposed to be is not actually what it is?

ArrBee · 08-04-2019 1:51pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

the practical purpose we have for is being, is to comply with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_energy_performance_of_buildings

what do you think it was "supposed to be" ?

do you consider that what you think its supposed to be is not actually what it is?

I wouldn't call ticking a box a practical purpose.

Seeing the link, it could well be that the sole purpose was to tick the box and comply with the EU directive. Makes sense.
In which case it is being marketed as something that it's not. as you say.

Of course, I do consider that what I think it is supposed to be is not what it actually is. That's what I am saying....

beauf · 08-04-2019 2:47pm

A Building Energy Rating (BER) certificate indicates your building's energy performance. It is similar to the energy label for household appliances.

ummmf

caesarthechimp · 08-04-2019 10:46pm

Del2005 wrote: »

They can only look through the attic hatch they can't climb in unless it's got a proper access ladder, I'm sure that the builders are aware of this.

I would not agree with this.
Its not too much to expect a BER assessor to buy a stepladder or a telescopic ladder and carry it around in case there is no "styra" installed.

caesarthechimp · 08-04-2019 10:52pm

ArrBee wrote: »

...Even if the assessor marked the boiler to cylinder pipe work as insulated (resulting in an artificially high BER) I would consider this a limitation of the framework as there was insulation.... just really really bad insulation and the length of run probably doesn't come into it either.

You made this allegation a few times, but what is your basis for suggesting it?
Look in your Advisory Report. If it says there something like...

Hot Water Primary Circuit Losses
Uncontrolled heat loss can also be reduced by installing insulation on hot water distribution pipework where heating is not required. This reduces the amount of heat required to be generated by the heating system, and so reduces the amount of fuel required. Ideally, this involves all pipework (flow and return) between the boiler and hot water cylinder being insulated (including in walls and floors).

.. then the assessor has not marked it as insulated.

ArrBee · 09-04-2019 10:15am

caesarthechimp wrote: »

You made this allegation a few times, but what is your basis for suggesting it?
Look in your Advisory Report. If it says there something like... .. then the assessor has not marked it as insulated.

I'll double check if there is something similar in the report.

Why do you describe it as an allegation? How exactly are you reading my comment?

The pipe which runs 10-15 meters outside before getting to the house was insulated, but with a very poor insulation which was visible at the boiler connection. No ifs, no buts.
Either the assessor correctly marked it as no insulation as it was so poor, or they correctly marked it as having insulation because it actually does have insulation. The framework appears to be too black and white on that and doesn't allow for differences in insulation or length of run.
Hardly the fault of the assessor but clearly a limitation in what the framework can produce. Which led to the discussion about what the BER is actually for etc.

Well, at least, that's how I am reading the thread.

Granted, at the start I did have an assumption that a chimney was a chimney which had me alleging the assessor made a mistake there, but all comments about the water heating was assuming limitation in the framework from the start and I was asking questions to confirm that.
I figured it would be easy for the framework to allow quality of insulation and length of run into the calculation as you can see the insulation at one end and measure the length.

Others have said that assessors can't assume that insulation at the ends also exist the whole way so it must be marked as missing, yet others have said that the same approach doesn't apply for the ceiling.

Given the above, I did ask one question about how wall insulation is assessed (not a new build), but didn't get a reply.

Metric Tensor · 09-04-2019 12:11pm

ArrBee wrote: »

Given the above, I did ask one question about how wall insulation is assessed (not a new build), but didn't get a reply.

If the assessor can see it at an ESB meter box or the builder or homeowner can provide some sort of certification or proof then that can be used.

If it can't be seen and no evidence exists there is a series of default values that can be used based on the apparent age of the building or wall.

ArrBee · 09-04-2019 3:06pm

Metric Tensor wrote: »

If the assessor can see it at an ESB meter box or the builder or homeowner can provide some sort of certification or proof then that can be used.

If it can't be seen and no evidence exists there is a series of default values that can be used based on the apparent age of the building or wall.

This makes absolute sense to me. And to apply the same logic to other areas, it should be possible to asses the insulation around a pipe by looking at the end of the pipe.

Metric Tensor · 09-04-2019 3:50pm

Logic is not something that's present in abundance in this particular scheme!

sydthebeat · 09-04-2019 4:49pm

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Logic is not something that's present in abundance in this particular scheme!

agreed !!

imagine how frustrating it is to work under these conventions OP

caesarthechimp · 10-04-2019 12:41pm

ArrBee wrote: »

The pipe which runs 10-15 meters outside before getting to the house was insulated, but with a very poor insulation which was visible at the boiler connection. No ifs, no buts.
Either the assessor correctly marked it as no insulation as it was so poor, or they correctly marked it as having insulation because it actually does have insulation. The framework appears to be too black and white on that and doesn't allow for differences in insulation or length of run.

Actually both of those options you mentioned are highly unlikely.
I would say either he correctly marked it as uninsulated because he could not verify insulation along the entire length, or he incorrectly marked it as insulated because he made a mistake. And bear in mind a BER is a certificate, and you can't expect somebody to certify something that they can't see.

But before you go talking about mistakes, first you have to establish whether the primary circuit was marked as insulated or uninsulated.

I agree with you on the chimney thing. It is stupid to say there is no chimney in a house when there obviously is one, but its connected via a flue pipe.
If assessors could rephrase the text in the advisory report, they would.

sydthebeat · 10-04-2019 1:17pm

caesarthechimp wrote: »

If assessors could rephrase the text in the advisory report, they would.

amen !

novemberbass · 09-06-2023 9:48am

somewhat related, do you think it's possible for a landlord to ask/pay off an assessor to give a false higher rating than what the house actually is if they know the assessor and the assessor was game?