IES-VE User Forum

Yeah, I've got emails from both STROMA and CIBSE confirming this....somewhere in my filing system.

Perhaps Stroma have employed Hypnotoad as their CIBSE liaison?

Of course that is slightly different to what Stroma were originally suggesting; that you cannot use DSM for level 3 and 4 assessments at all.

So let me make sure I have this straight... If I'm assessing a Level 4 building using IES DSM through CIBSE, that's fine but I have to set it so that it shows as Level 5 on the certificate? That feels like CIBSE are telling us to break an established rule to make their administration slightly easier, or am I being too cynical...?

EDIT: Just out of interest, what's the difference between a Level 4 fee and a Level 5 fee?

When you lodge the EPC on STROMA's website there are two settings for the building complexity: the 'Assessment Complexity' and the 'Actual Building Level Type'. You therefore effectively lodge it as a Level 5 EPC while still claiming the building is only a Level 3 or 4.

Roughly, it costs £30 to lodge an SBEM (Level 3 or 4), and £250 for a DSM (Level 5).

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.

£250!? There is no emoticon for what I am feeling!

The logic doesn't stack up and it's funny that there was no mention of this little detail during the CIBSE Low Carbon Consultant course I attended back in March. According to the trainer, the audits for Level 5 happen far more infrequently due to the requirement for an office visit and detailed model review, something like once a year I think. That means if I submit 10 DSM models in a year I'm paying CIBSE £2,300 extra even though they will only audit one of them.

The charge should be per audit or per audit period, not per model IMHO.

Hi,

From what I can gather it looks like things are moving towards a higher lodgement fee if you use DSM due to the auditing requirements which were changed last summer.

I understand they are much stricter and even involve an auditor visiting you in the office for level 5 projects.

It makes sense to me that the building level on the certificate reflects the complexity though as this has always been the case.

Personally I very rarely use SBEM due to BREEAM requirements so it makes life simpler to always use DSM. I may need to reconsider this if the fees are going to be so different though.

Our company's issues are that we have lodged a huge number of level 4 buildings with DSM and only been charged the much smaller fees. These are obviously going to be very uneconomical for the accreditation body to audit if they have to be audited as level 5! Their response has been to fail the audits despite us following the complexity guidance they sent us.

I would advise anyone about to lodge an EPC done using DSM to get confirmation from the accreditation body for which level to select.

I expect there will be clarification of this in the next set of EPC conventions.

Wow.

The logistics involved in auditing every DSM model are mind boggling and I can't see how CIBSE would have the resources to actually do it.

DSM allows for much more flexibility on the inputs than SBEM and that flexibility often means a better (and fairer) result can be achieved using DSM which is why we almost always use that route. Additionally, the increased detail in outputs means DSM allows us to more quickly home-in on problem areas.

True level 5 buildings are quite rare but most projects I've worked on have benefited in some way from the DSM analysis and I'll be extremely annoyed if I'm forced to revert to an inferior modelling engine for administration purposes.

Lastly, most design stage work from large consultancies are done using DSM because better results can be achieved. If an EPC assessor is inheriting a job that was deisgned under DSM they will need to use the same methodology to achieve the design stage results.

This all sounds like it needs careful thinking about and clarification before being implemented by the powers that be.

shouldn't the fee be based on the tool used to perform the assessment rather than the building complexity then? This feels like some unnecessary extra hoops to jump through for energy assessors. I'm surprised to hear CIBSE have followed suit but I guess income is more important.



Phil

PCully wrote:shouldn't the fee be based on the tool used to perform the assessment rather than the building complexity then?

I think that's exactly what is happening (and makes logical sense to a point) but the problem lies in the fact that EVERY DSM lodgement will result in a fee of £250 under the justification of higher auditing costs despite that fact that only a small sample will actually get checked.

So basically, the more assessments you lodge in a year, the worse value for money you are getting.

As I said before, the additional fee should be charged per audit, not per model but then CIBSE would make far less money.

Where it really stings is that at the same time they've made the decision that while I'm a fully accredited level 5 DSM assessor and have also passed the IES SBEM exam, I'm not apparently accredited to do IES SBEM calculations so they will not let me submit EPC's based upon the SBEM output.

I'm therefore forced into going through the whole accreditation process again for level 3 and 4 in order to prove my competency! It's madness. Madness with the convenient by-product of needing me to pay for more services through CIBSE or STROMA.

Amen to that one John, I'm in the same situation. If we want to be accredited for Level 3/4 we need to have filled in the Level 3/4 APEL which conveniently incurs another set of assessment fees (and takes another few weeks worth of lunchbreaks from my life).

But it gets worse... The Level 3/4 APEL application asks for almost the same NOS statements as the Level 5 versions (quite a few are the same in fact) but if you copy/paste from the Level 5 statements it's apparently not allowed. You have to go back through and re-word everything to say the same thing in a different way.

EDIT: Good to see the zapper back!