From SEI - July Technical Bulletin

sinnerboy

DEAP is used to demonstrate a building’s conformance with specific aspects of Part L of the Building
Regulations. In completing a BER for a new dwelling, the assessor must identify the particular Building
Regulations which apply to the dwelling. DEAP performs checks for new dwellings for which either Building
Regulations 2005 TGD L or 2008 TGD L apply.
As per Section 18 of the Code of Practice, if the Building Regulations Part L applies to the building being
rated and the BER Assessor finds that it does not conform to the requirements of Part L, then the BER
Assessor is obliged to notify the client and to identify which elements of the design do not conform to these
Regulations.
Please refer to Section 13 of the DEAP manual for further details.
Building Regulations 2008 TGD L applies to new dwellings, where the work commences or takes place, as the
case may be, on or after 1 July 2008. Earlier versions of TGD L cease to have effect from 1 July 2008.
However, Building Regulations 2005 TGD L 1 apply in the case of new dwellings:
· where the work, material alteration or the change of use commences or takes place, as the case may
be, on or before 30 June 2008, or
· where planning approval or permission has been applied for on or before 30 June 2008, and
substantial work has been completed by 1 July 2009.
“Substantial work has been completed” means that the structure of the external walls has been erected.

sinnerboy

this troubles me

why should a BER assessor be expected to comment on compliance with b regs

he/she ought to simply charged with issuing the BER Cert

we are SUPPOSED TO have a building control regime to enforce b regs

is it reasonable to expect the assessor to establish

1. when planning was applied for
2. upon what date "substantial completion" was achieved - meaning the date upon which the external walls were completed

Client may , just may , "manipulate" that . Piss the wrong client off - you may not simply lose the BER commission - you may get sued

legs_akimbo

This brings me back to another thread and the standard construction methods employed to construct cavity walls which fall short of the reg compliance, as well as all the other elements for that matter. (Particularly Dormer construction)
Where is the sense in having a BER assessor have to do building controls work !!!
Besides bolting the barn door is an analogy that is befitting for a non compliant BER to a newly constructed dwelling
some councils insist on plans being 2008 compliant before permission is granted which makes perfect sense to me.
Indeed a system like the one in England should have been employed long since whereby at every stage...footings, DPC / sub floor, plate, roof, completion have to be independantly inspected by a building control officer from the council to ensure everything is spot on.
I believe while many engineers/ architects can turn out an impressive looking CAD drawing they have not the abillity to enhace these plans with adequatly in what should be a very basic and fundemental need for clarity in specification detail.

No6

But don't forget the famous term "substantial compliance" so when you notify the client he then tackles the architect / engineer who could say its in "Substantial Compliance" therefore its fine!!! Without a suitable efficient and useful compliance system in this country, it's pointless all you are doing with the notification is covering a) your ass as an assessor and b) Most importantly SEI's ass

sinnerboy

No - No6 - you are potentially relying on your Assessor PI cover

No6

No I'm relying on the certifing architects / engineers PI cover!!!! I didn't say I wouldn't send a notification therefore covering my ass.

SilverBER

Its unfortunate that we seem to have signed up for this stuff when we register with SEI. It's a bit of a cod, actually, because we sign up to a code of practice and regulations and then they drip feed amendments to the system as we go along and we are either too naive or timid to argue the point with them. The system is totally slanted in favour of the SEI and we, as BER assessors, only feel the need to cover our backsides in any way we can.
In my case I did 25 apartments for an architect friend a couple of months ago. They were brand new and they didn't comply according to the software so I informed him of this and he hammered the builder. The builder rolled over in this case and had to rectify the situation. Under the rules, thats all I could do but I was expecting a lot of grief over it and I was second guessing myself all the way through a difficult week.

BERmad

SilverBER wrote: »

Its unfortunate that we seem to have signed up for this stuff when we register with SEI. It's a bit of a cod, actually, because we sign up to a code of practice and regulations and then they drip feed amendments to the system as we go along and we are either too naive or timid to argue the point with them. The system is totally slanted in favour of the SEI and we, as BER assessors, only feel the need to cover our backsides in any way we can.
In my case I did 25 apartments for an architect friend a couple of months ago. They were brand new and they didn't comply according to the software so I informed him of this and he hammered the builder. The builder rolled over in this case and had to rectify the situation. Under the rules, thats all I could do but I was expecting a lot of grief over it and I was second guessing myself all the way through a difficult week.

A lot of hassel for you. I had the same sort of problem a few months ago with a new housing estate. I told the contractor but he didnt care he just wanted the certs. But I did waste a lot of time checking my calcs, Spent more time than I wanted to on them as I gave him a good deal. Again it shouldnt not be up to us to point out these things. We price jobs on issuing certs not telling people if the houses meet building regs or not. I think it should be up to the engineer.

sinnerboy

My point is - which in fairness I don't think is escaping anyone - is that an assessor could find themselves in more than just commercial hassle . Rightly or wrongly an "aggrieved" client ( builder ) or designer could take a legal action .

legs_akimbo

legs_akimbo wrote: »

This brings me back to another thread and the standard construction methods employed to construct cavity walls which fall short of the reg compliance, as well as all the other elements for that matter. (Particularly Dormer construction)
Where is the sense in having a BER assessor have to do building controls work !!!
Besides bolting the barn door is an analogy that is befitting for a non compliant BER to a newly constructed dwelling
some councils insist on plans being 2008 compliant before permission is granted which makes perfect sense to me.
Indeed a system like the one in England should have been employed long since whereby at every stage...footings, DPC / sub floor, plate, roof, completion have to be independantly inspected by a building control officer from the council to ensure everything is spot on.
I believe while many engineers/ architects can turn out an impressive looking CAD drawing they have not the abillity to enhace these plans with adequatly in what should be a very basic and fundemental need for clarity in specification detail.

No 6 Then followed with :

But don't forget the famous term "substantial compliance" so when you notify the client he then tackles the architect / engineer who could say its in "Substantial Compliance" therefore its fine!!! Without a suitable efficient and useful compliance system in this country, it's pointless all you are doing with the notification is covering a) your ass as an assessor and b) Most importantly SEI's ass

Rather ironic that I was slateing engineers only for no 6 to make the next post, when, (and I dont think he is aware of it,) it was No 6 who actually drew the plans for my house a few years ago !!
In fairness those drawings were far and away some of the best I have ever worked with and contained very detailed specs, pity most are not as concientious !

sydthebeat

how about this for open ended legislation.....

Directions by Issuing Authority
12. (1) The issuing authority may from time to time issue directions to BER assessors in relation to –
(f) codes of practice to be respected by BER assessors

from EPBD...


so SEI are free to pile on whatever extra responsibility they wish, at any time, onto assessors...... how does everyone feel about that...

does that fact that many of us had already registered as assessors, before the appearance of this code of practise, immunise us from its requirements???

No6

Thanks for that Legs? I am totally unaware of your identity? feel free to confirm by PM in you like.

My point with the substantial compliance is that it is very open ened and gives professionals who sign certificates of compliance a possible out where difficluties arise. I have worked with a number of Architects and Engineers over the years some of whom were fussier that others but all quite good and I have come across others usually during conveyencing where the certificates are 100% worthless. To my mind it is the system that is wrong or in reality non existant, perhaps we are being trained up un-beknown to ourselves to become building controll officers specialising in Part L

SEI are a government body therefore they bear no responsibility for anything just like the government!!!

sinnerboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

how about this for open ended legislation.....

Directions by Issuing Authority
12. (1) The issuing authority may from time to time issue directions to BER assessors in relation to –
(f) codes of practice to be respected by BER assessors

from EPBD...


so SEI are free to pile on whatever extra responsibility they wish, at any time, onto assessors...... how does everyone feel about that...

does that fact that many of us had already registered as assessors, before the appearance of this code of practise, immunise us from its requirements???

I did the training to learn DEAP + comply with tough new Part L .
BER certs for clients is a loss leader . I would HATE to be doing lots of certs . I think SEI can take whatever liberty they wish

recedite

SilverBER wrote: »

they didn't comply according to the software so I informed him of this and he hammered the builder. The builder rolled over in this case and had to rectify the situation.

The "powers that be" can justifiably be well pleased with this result.
With DEAP and the BER assessors they have introduced an extra layer of quality control to building design, not unlike the role that pharmacists play in relation to checking the prescriptions of G.P.s,
except without the high cost of pharmacists.

sydthebeat

SilverBER wrote: »

In my case I did 25 apartments for an architect friend a couple of months ago. They were brand new and they didn't comply according to the software so I informed him of this and he hammered the builder. The builder rolled over in this case and had to rectify the situation. Under the rules, thats all I could do but I was expecting a lot of grief over it and I was second guessing myself all the way through a difficult week.

did you do the assessments as provisionals or finals...

if finals, then had the architect signed off the apartments??
if he had, what did he say when you told him they didnt comply 'according to the 'software'....

SilverBER

recedite wrote: »

The "powers that be" can justifiably be well pleased with this result.
With DEAP and the BER assessors they have introduced an extra layer of quality control to building design, not unlike the role that pharmacists play in relation to checking the prescriptions of G.P.s,
except without the high cost of pharmacists.

Pharmacists as BER assessors ...... Interesting one that!
I have a solution for this, offer a quote for something outrageous like €25K. That'll sort it!

SilverBER

sydthebeat wrote: »

did you do the assessments as provisionals or finals...

if finals, then had the architect signed off the apartments??
if he had, what did he say when you told him they didnt comply 'according to the 'software'....

They werent provisionals. I was asked to do the BERs because the client wanted to put them up for sale just as the development was nearing completion. The builder was still on site and the architect wanted to make sure that he was compliant. When the changes were made I published the BERs and the architect signed off then I presume.

sydthebeat

SilverBER wrote: »

They werent provisionals. I was asked to do the BERs because the client wanted to put them up for sale just as the development was nearing completion. The builder was still on site and the architect wanted to make sure that he was compliant. When the changes were made I published the BERs and the architect signed off then I presume.

what alterations were made, may i ask??

SilverBER

I defaulted everything in DEAP to begin with because the builder wouldn't open anything up (I wouldnt have either to be honest) so they were non compliant until the architect produced an as built drawing and some specs. The attic insulation had to have 100mm added.

sydthebeat

SilverBER wrote: »

I defaulted everything in DEAP to begin with because the builder wouldn't open anything up (I wouldnt have either to be honest) so they were non compliant until the architect produced an as built drawing and some specs. The attic insulation had to have 100mm added.

you only had to do the assessment from the as built drawings....

this is the point i suppose, regarding the non-compliance..... we should be doing these assessment on 'new' buildings from the as built drawings and not from a site survey....
of course the client is supposed to supply the as built drawings and specifications...

sinnerboy

Except - "the assessor is responsible for the accuracy of the information"

I am now looking a 3 houses - "new" . So off plans is ok right ? Wrong .

Builder - with client instruction mirrored the buildings on site .

Dispute with Architect so no as built sign off .

Defaults ?

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

"the assessor is responsible for the accuracy of the information"

where did you see this???

the only reference similar in the code of practice states that "Each BER Assessor hereby acknowledges that responsibility for conducting BER assessments and the accuracy of the results of such assessments rests solely with them"

It is acceptable for the assessor to be responsible for the accuracy of the results.

Its my understanding that once the client supplies and 'signs off' the information (spec, dwgs etc) then the assessor is cleared of any responsibility of accuracy of the information. this is how it was described by my training provider any way. Should the supplied information be found to be incorrect then the certificate is deemed invalid and a new certificate should be issued at a cost to the 'client'

No6

sinnerboy wrote: »

Except - "the assessor is responsible for the accuracy of the information"

I am now looking a 3 houses - "new" . So off plans is ok right ? Wrong .

Builder - with client instruction mirrored the buildings on site .

Dispute with Architect so no as built sign off .

Defaults ?

But the plans are still what they have built, they have just mirrired them so you can still do your BER cert's you just nedd to adjust the orentation to whats actually built. The fact that the Client & Builder are in dispute with the architect is irrevalent to you as an assessor (unless your are also the architect!!). Ensure the builder and Client sign off on what has been built and on the information they have given you. To my mind we are merely data gatherers and inputers, where the software flags a non compliance issue it should be advised but other than that we are simply not getting paid enough to get into a big argument on whats right or wrong is it in compliance with all the building regs and or planning etc etc. Clients and builders are forever changing things you just have to work with it or let the architect resolve it.

sinnerboy

http://www.sei.ie/Your_Building/BER/BER_Assessors/Code_of_Practice.pdf

5. Data Integrity
A BER Assessor is responsible for ensuring that, within reason, the data compiled and inputted to
SEI approved calculation software and all other related and recorded calculations are an accurate
representation of all characteristics relevant to the energy performance of the building and are
capable of being verified as such in any subsequent monitoring and compliance processes
commenced by SEI.

sinnerboy

Point is - I could have issued certs based on drawings e mailed to me alone. They are new buildings . The site was close by so I "popped by" to uncover the full story .

Yes - all you say is correct No6 . It's just the endless potential for hassle arising out of SEI audit / client messing ....

All for a song !

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

http://www.sei.ie/Your_Building/BER/BER_Assessors/Code_of_Practice.pdf

5. Data Integrity
A BER Assessor is responsible for ensuring that, within reason, the data compiled and inputted to
SEI approved calculation software and all other related and recorded calculations are an accurate
representation of all characteristics relevant to the energy performance of the building and are
capable of being verified as such in any subsequent monitoring and compliance processes
commenced by SEI.

"capable of being verified" to me equates to the assessor being able to show where he/she got the info....

after all thats all they look for in an audit....

No6

Yes you are right sinnerboy and you would have been totally correct if an audit revealed they were mirrored but signed off incorrectly by the client / builder.

In regard to visiting sites I have found having done a number of new and existing certs, the existing certs are way faster to do, generally no calculations all defaults you input what you can see, simple. New build you have to take off the drawings, input what you can find on the spec's and then go and look for all the missing information. I have found it easier to go when the job is completed and check all the bits you are missing, like the eaact heating system/controll's, number of light bulbs etc etc etc... and then get the client to sign off on the information you have gathered. It dosn't matter what spec you put down around here it will always be built differently, we are usually doing well to have a building in vaguly the right place that looks a little like what got planning and complies with some of the building regs just not sure which ones!!!:D ( I Know you lot are a lot stricter in Dublin!!)

sinnerboy

No 6 - it's not true - this happened in 'burb of the big smoke

We ( Irish ) seem pre disposed to disdain regs - unless being one foolish enough to sign off on them

Sure - it'll do :pac::pac::pac:

No6

sinnerboy wrote: »

No 6 - it's not true - this happened in 'burb of the big smoke

We ( Irish ) seem pre disposed to disdain regs - unless being one foolish enough to sign off on them

Sure - it'll do :pac::pac::pac:

But one of them at least must have been a culchie!!!!:D

SilverBER

sydthebeat wrote: »

you only had to do the assessment from the as built drawings....

this is the point i suppose, regarding the non-compliance..... we should be doing these assessment on 'new' buildings from the as built drawings and not from a site survey....
of course the client is supposed to supply the as built drawings and specifications...

No, Syd, I don't trust anyones drawings or should I say I dont trust anyones interpretation of drawings. I went out and surveyed the entire 25 units, entered them in DEAP as new dwellings that were built under the 2005 Regs. I demanded an as built drawing and specs from the architect before I assigned a non default uvalue otherwise they would have been defaulted and thereby rendered non compliant in DEAP. It was preferrable for me to have the correct uvalues entered because I was terrified that the client and architect would get legal on me. It was an uncomfortable experience and not one I fancy going through again. They could have paid me a grand per unit and it wouldnt be enough.

sinnerboy

SilverBER wrote: »

I was terrified that the client and architect would get legal on me. It was an uncomfortable experience and not one I fancy going through again. They could have paid me a grand per unit and it wouldnt be enough.

The very point I made in post 2 .

So again I say - in the absence of a building control regime - BER Assessors in effect are forced into acting as enforcers for aspects of Part L of the regs .

If you don't highlight non compliances - SEI will clobber you on audit .
If you do ..... sorry to hear of the stress you were subjected to SilverBER .