CIBSE (The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers) says that non-compliance with Energy Performance of Building Regulations (EPB Regulations) is costing millions and cannot now be overlooked.
The Institution is highlighting a significant case where failure to enforce the EPB Regulations has cost taxpayers £5.7m.
In a column in the CIBSE Journal (November 2013) published on 31 October, CIBSE Technical Director, Dr Hywel Davies, points out that Landmark Information Group will be receiving £5.7m in compensation relating to a contract to run the national energy certificate register awarded in 2007 and extended to cover lodgement of air conditioning inspection reports in 2012. Thanks to the lower-than-expected level of certificate lodgement, Landmark's revenues are short of what it costs to run the register.
According to CIBSE, energy efficiency measures for both domestic and non-domestic property can reduce energy demand and provide tangible savings over the longer term. However, it says that a lack of enforcement of measures and compliance with the Energy Performance of Building Regulations is an issue that has to be addressed urgently.
The Institution has announced that it will convene a special EPB Regulations Non-Compliance round table before the end of the year to address the matter and will be inviting interested parties to attend. The forum will also discuss the necessity of an ongoing Task Force to help government address this critical issue.
The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), which is responsible for the EPB Regulations, which the register supports, says it does not know how many of the buildings that should have Energy Performance Certificates actually have them, CIBSE says.
Dr Davies said: 'Energy efficiency is the most cost effective way to reduce energy consumption in buildings. Energy Certificates and air conditioning inspections are legal requirements which are intended to help businesses cut their energy bills, something that everyone wants to do. It is time that they were taken seriously, and the government took its responsibility under the Directive seriously.'
