DPE: doubts about the results? Scam, crooks ...

[elephant]

Be careful however jit22.

A DPE is intended to provide a level of comparison between buildings under standard conditions. point.

It is obvious that a building occupied by a young working couple will consume less than the same occupied by a family with 2 children or a couple of chilly pensioners.
And that the same couple of young people will consume less if it is trapped between two pensioners houses than a couple of pensioners trapped between two unoccupied houses. But that is not standard!

[Christophe]

For those who want to check their ECD themselves.

The file mentioned above has been in downloads since 2007 (I believe):
https://www.econologie.com/dpe-outil-et- ... -3585.html

On the other hand, it is incomprehensible: locked cells, lack of explanations ... well, I can't use it! (But maybe it's because I'm on OpenOffice?)

So prefer this one, as complete not based on the characteristics of the building but on energy and thermal (heating instructions, losses, contribution ...) but more understandable therefore exploitable: https://www.econologie.com/dpe-bilan-the ... -3583.html

In both cases, plan a 2/1 day anyway ...

[jlt22]

Be careful however jit22.

A DPE is intended to provide a level of comparison between buildings under standard conditions. point.

It is obvious that a building occupied by a young working couple will consume less than the same occupied by a family with 2 children or a couple of chilly pensioners.
And that the same couple of young people will consume less if it is trapped between two pensioners houses than a couple of pensioners trapped between two unoccupied houses. But that is not standard!

What you say is correct Elephant, but Christophe tells us in a post that the DPE are given for 19-21 °; I try to regulate manually between 19,5 and 20,5, I am retired so often at home, and rather chilly, and, my friend works.

I am in an independent house facing south, and I take full advantage of the sun in winter when it wants to show itself (northern Brittany) as today. (The indoor temperature rose to 21,8)

[AVEVA]

No post for 1 year!

Does this mean that everything is fine in this area?

I just had a diagnosis carried out by a professional holder of the skills certificate, it took 2 1/2 hours to make the statements intended to establish for the sale:
- DPE
- the "Carrez law" measurement certificate
- asbestos
- electrical safety diagnostics;
- natural risks
He looked serious ...

The result of energy performance is however stupid, yes.

Final energy consumption:
Heating: electricity 27516kWhef
domestic hot water: electricity 3166kWhef
Energy consumption
for identified uses 30682kWhef

This places the house with a Carrez law area of ​​154.71m2 ("113.48m2 not being taken into account") in energy-intensive consumption of the G

The average consumption calculated over 9 years (1978 to 1987 inclusive) all expenses combined (meter reading) is 22895kWhef / year

(The average is made over these 9 years because the house was occupied by the stay-at-home mother and 2 school-age children.
From the 1st child in 1988 consumption increased to 21000kWh and from the second child in 1995 to around 18000kWh)

If the consumption of household equipment is estimated at 5000kW, the actual consumption of heating + hot water rises for the period 78 - 87 to 17900kWh, i.e. an error of 70% on the energy diagnosis which must be communicated to the purchaser.

This obligation causes damage to the seller, this erroneous information is the responsibility of the Council of State.

In civil society, a forecast error of 5% is a reason for dismissal for serious misconduct.
In the public domain, it is a means of moving from director of ADEM to that of Minister.

[jlt22]

Apparently nothing has changed in the way of making the diagnoses, always so seriously !!!!!!!

First you have to do it yourself with the software downloadable from the site, and compare it with consumption.
We can then, perhaps, go and challenge the one made by the technician.

[dedeleco]

For the DPE, you did not provide the real invoices and statements to look at ??????
He must write them down !!!

[AVEVA]

Thank you for your answers,

As I indicated in the "post" the diagnostician looked serious and I will add competent.
I checked before ordering it, it is well approved by the Icert certification institute.
A priori I do not question his own work but the software "models", coefficients and others which are made available to him.

I phoned her upon receipt of her diagnosis to tell her of my amazement at the energy consumption. He replied that he applied the methods imposed by the administration, which I believe.

I will rather doubt the appropriateness of the choices and orientations of the administration which are not adapted to the diagnosis of a detached house.

I have only had EdF invoices "only" since 1986 and since that year I am often absent, so honestly the consumption is not significant (16000kWh / year)

The diagnoses are made from the invoices and the co-ownership fees when the heating is collective, which is still completely silly!
The top floor corner apartment needs double the calories of a mid-floor apartment surrounded by other apartments. On equal surface, the directors' fees are almost identical. It is elementary but escapes the eminent officials in charge of energy diagnostic methods.

[chlurps]

With the introduction of the new PTZ + whose amount granted is directly conditioned by the score obtained at ECD well considered, the government is replacing this tool at the heart of the debates while its reliability is still widely open to question, both in the way it is undertaken and in the results provided.

A very eloquent article on this subject: http://www.dessine-moi-une-maison.fr/20 ... -2011.html

[Christophe]

Thank you chlurps, I see that we are not the only ones to have a "mixed" opinion on the quality of DPE.

Here is the conclusion of the article which summarizes the idea of ​​the article:

Conclusion: scam or argue?

I would remind you that even if the DPE is a compulsory legal act, it has only an informative value. Nothing obliges the owner to take the recommendations into account, and fortunately.

Since the validity of the DPE is 10 years, it is unlikely that it will reflect reality in the 10th year during a possible sale, if one takes into account the deterioration of the joinery, the packing of the insulators and wear general of a building.

It has been noted that since its establishment only 19% of owners have embarked on the facilities recommended by the diagnosis. DPE therefore does not have the expected influence on energy saving and environmental protection.

In the event of an error (voluntary or not), the buyer or the tenant who has been misled by an incorrect diagnosis cannot turn against the owner. There is no sanction. Although meager compensation, he can act against the diagnostician at fault and ask him for compensation.

As I have already suggested above, the independence of the diagnosticians vis-à-vis the owners (or their representatives: real estate agency, notary) or works companies (in the case of a new construction) is much discussed .

A 2006 survey by the Directorate General for Competition, Consumption and the Suppression of Fraud (DGCCRF) highlights that, four times out of five, the diagnosis is ordered by the real estate intermediary and sometimes commissions are given in return which can represent 15% to 30% of the turnover of the diagnostician.

The level of services provided by professionals varies according to the equipment they have and their training. Data are not always reliable. The DGCCRF investigation revealed a rate of anomalies greater than 50%.

EDF or GDF invoices do not take into account more or less severe winters or the temperature of the accommodation chosen by the previous occupants. The temperature prevailing in a heated room, appreciated according to everyone's comfort, is nevertheless a decisive element of energy consumption!

In 2006, no less than 210 regulatory reminders and four minutes for deception and false advertising were drawn up, revealing an anomaly rate greater than 50%. Of the 210 regulatory reminders, 60 related to the display of prices, 60 to the issuance of ratings, 43 to the billing rules, 37 to advertising and 10 to professional qualification.

Given the drastic conditions to obtain the BBC label during a new construction (class A of the DPE), and knowing that some do not obtain it despite a rigorous specification established upstream, we can legitimately wonder about the means used to obtain the same classification for a renovated apartment (or not) in an old building, as displayed by certain real estate advertisements.

In all cases, a good classification in the DPE brings an advantage as much to the seller for the sale (displayed quality of the good) as to the buyer (fiscal advantages in term of financing) that one can only encourage the drifts ...

The first comment is also interesting:

There is a lot to say about this article describing ECD.
At first it seems to me necessary to rectify some comments of the author who I think should deepen his research before writing an accusing article of a whole profession.
The author (who has not signed) speaks of the certification exam as a “common sense MCQ” I quote. I therefore invite him to go to pass his certifications without training and it is a safe bet that he will fail successfully. The theoretical part of the exams is indeed a multiple response MCQ which verifies that the professional has all the technical knowledge required for the exercise of the diagnosis in question. The practical part being done before a jury with situation.
Secondly, it is said in the text that the DPE does not take into account the actual consumption of the former occupants.
Indeed it is exact and it is not a coincidence since the DPE is established for a housing by taking account of certain conventional parameters (altitude, nb of good weather days) at a conventional heating temperature of 19 °.
Why: Firstly, because the DPE has an informative value intended for the purchaser. then because it allows you to compare several dwellings with each other. Finally if the consumption habits of the last occupants were retained, the DPE would be absolutely not useful and would not provide information as for the accommodation. Some people do not heat at all while others overheat their accommodation!
To finish, even if it is true that errors could be noticed, you should know that the profession is more and more regulated and that the professionals of the trade are audited regularly in addition to passing their certifications every 5 years.
Let's stop attacking this profession, I think there are “good” and not so good in all trades. And this profession tends to improve in view of the increasingly numerous constraints and regulations that govern the profession

[jlt22]

Always as serious in DPE:

21/02/11 | 12:32 | updated at 15:24 | Les Echos | 2commentaires
UFC-Que Choisir "frightened" by the imprecision of energy diagnoses

The UFC-Que Choisir survey denounces the random nature of the energy performance diagnosis (DPE) carried out by companies. Since January 1, real estate advertisements must specify the energy class of the property.

ON THE SAME SUBJECT
28/10
Real estate: homes will have to display the green label
The results of the update of the UFC-Que Choisir survey on Energy Performance Diagnostics (DPE) highlight the random nature of the classification of DPE on the scale from A to G. Depending on the company who carries out the DPE, the same real estate can be classified in C, D or even E, according to the "frightening" results of a survey presented Monday by UFC-Que Choisir. This is all the more "worrying" for the consumer association, which recalls that the display of the DPE is now compulsory in property advertisements, and that it conditions the amount of the new loan at zero rate.
"Out of four houses visited by 16 diagnosticians: two houses were classified in no less than three different energy classes, one was classified in two different labels, only one having been assigned the same energy label by all these professionals", writes UFC-Que Choisir in a press release.
"One of the houses surveyed has been classified, according to the diagnosticians, in C, D or E, with an estimated consumption of 134 kiloWatt hours (kWh) to 244 kWh per m2 and per year, or an annual invoice varying from 1.000 to 1.800 euros ! ”, Continues the consumer association.
The association calls on the public authorities to "adopt without delay technical measures to make the DPE reliable" and to "make the DPE enforceable between the buyer and the seller so that the diagnostician can be held liable in the event of a false diagnosis".
The Grenelle de l'Environnement requires real estate listings to display, since January 1, 2011, the energy performance of housing, failure to comply with this obligation is subject to legal sanctions. DPE was already compulsory since 2006 for housing sales and since 2007 for rentals. It allows to know the energy consumption, their impact on the greenhouse effect, responsible for global warming, and to promote their control, by classifying goods in seven categories of A (50 kWh / square meter / year, or 250 expenditure) to G (450 kWh / m2 / year, 2.250 euros).
LES E CHOS (SOURCE: AFP)

Link:
[Url] http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/service-distribution/actu/0201165175504-ufc-que-choisir-effare-par-l-imprecision-des-diagnostics-energetiques.htm?xtor=EPR -1000- [la_une_soir] -20110221 [/ url]