Murton & Co recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the hope of discovering the underlying reasons for slipping standards in our sector.

Much of the data is confidential but it reveals a rising number of accreditation schemes’ quality assurance audit fails during the last two years; in 2023, there were 7,011 fails by Domestic Energy Assessors, but this had gone up to 7,295 in just the first 10 months of 2024.

The government’s new consultation – Reforms to the Energy Performance of Buildings regime – proposes giving accreditation schemes more control to oversee training, or possibly sole responsibility. In a previous report, it pointed out that 60% of Call for Evidence respondents thought that variation in EPC ratings was due to Assessors incorrectly inputting data. Of these, 37% attributed this to insufficient levels of Assessor expertise. It believes some non-scheme training centres might not always offer the standard of training needed to provide the required skills – and not surprisingly, Elmhurst agrees that the increase in independent training organisations has resulted in a ‘mixed bag’ in the quality of qualified assessors.

As I outlined in my response to the consultation, while a training monopoly would remove those online self-paced learning courses and raise standards, it would still fail to address the failings in quality accreditation scheme training. Our FOI results certainly cast doubt on the assumption that these schemes provide better standards. However, there is a significant failing by the awarding bodies, accreditation schemes and MHCLG to recognise that poor standards are due to out-of-date qualifications that aren’t fit for purpose. After all, the current qualifications haven’t been updated since 2013, despite significant changes in the EPC regime and the introduction of MEES. If consumers are to have faith in EPCs, Assessor standards need to improve, particularly as confidence in their accuracy has become increasingly important as the EPC is now a tool for funding streams, a mechanism for achieving net zero and influencing property values.

To address the dip in standards, there should be a barrier to entry, particularly as current courses are open to all – irrespective of experience in the property and construction market. I believe there should also be a greater emphasis on professionalism, ethics and integrity included in the training courses, along with an element of practical surveys and assessments. Assessors are thrown into the industry without having any knowledge of how to conduct a building survey, let alone recognise or understand the various building services and technologies that can play a significant part in its energy performance.

The Awarding Body of the Built Environment and City & Guilds may have stipulated minimum guided learning hours, but this isn’t being adhered to – that’s obvious from the learners I’ve met on shadowing days who had to be taken back to basics. Course length must reflect the time required for an aspiring Energy Assessor to become competent, which is considerably more than the current four days. As I’ve said before, the qualification would very much suit an apprenticeship scheme.

Some in the sector have already challenged my view and believe that increasing the number of guided learning hours for a DEA or NDEA trainee is unrealistic and uneconomical, but surely if the awarding body has stipulated the hours, then that’s what should be delivered. The Skills Council needs to rewrite the assessment criteria, and the awarding bodies must then build qualifications around it.

The suggestion in the consultation document about a course or training specifically for historic buildings suggests that the current qualifications will remain as they are, with a top-up – possibly a day in a classroom environment rather than a practical day. This will be very similar to the retrofit course curriculum and I’m assuming that existing courses for retrofit of historic buildings will just be adapted or deemed suitable for EPCs. That’s a cop out and won’t improve Energy Assessors’ knowledge and understanding.

Improving the QA Audit regime is also a must as Assessor liability needs to be urgently addressed. Judging by our FOI findings, it’s a ticking time-bomb. Of course, increasing the frequency of audits will impact the Accreditation Schemes and mean they’ll have to increase their costs which, in turn, will raise the cost of registering an EPC. I expect Assessors rather than clients would be the first to complain as many already neglect to separate the registration fee from their survey and processing fee.

I hope this consultation sparks a useful debate about how we can work together to raise standards, at the right pace. If we don’t overhaul training and auditing to produce better equipped Assessors, we risk being left with a profession that is viewed as not fit for purpose, but if we go too hard and too far, Assessors will leave the industry, and the profession could find itself in an even worse state.