Energy performance diagnostics: UFC-Que Choisir denounces a big nonsense, again and again

While the relevance of the DPE is more than ever essential given the consequences of qualifying housing as a thermal sieve, the UFC-Que Choisir, on the basis of the analysis of 34 diagnoses carried out in 7 houses located in different regions of France (1), asks the Government to review from top to bottom the certification process for diagnostic professionals, and that the opposability of the DPE be extended to recommendations for the work to be carried out.

Up to 3 difference classes for the same property

While a consumer wishing to carry out an ECD of his home as part of the sale or rental of a property could logically consider that the choice of diagnostician will not affect his classification, the reality on the ground highlights staggering differences. Indeed, among the 7 houses which have been the subject of numerous diagnoses (between 4 and 5 each), 6 of them have not been recognized with the same energy class, with even a house for which the class assigned goes from B to E while it is low consumption!

This situation could make you smile if the determination of the class of the DPE did not have such significant consequences on the valuation of the property, or even on the estimate of energy consumption and therefore of the bills, which for a house goes even from simple to more than double (+226%). Worse, with the ban on the sale or rental of energy-intensive real estate which will gradually take effect from next year for the most energy-intensive, the consequences of incorrect classification will prove even more detrimental.

Wacky savings work recommendations

The regulations require diagnosticians to include on the DPE recommendations on work to improve the energy efficiency of housing or limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, some advice is simply mind-boggling: an installer recommended installing a solar water heater when the house already had one. Similarly, estimates of work deemed essential for the same house vary from just over 3.000 euros to 10 times more for another diagnostician.

How can we be surprised by this situation when diagnostic professionals are unable to all agree on the main source of heat loss in homes? Indeed, for the same property, the DPE of a diagnostician indicates that the walls weigh for 49% in the loss of heat from the dwelling, when that of one of its competitors indicates that they only weigh for 19%.

The public authorities continue to support these professionals

The professionals contacted are all present on a government site (2) listing certified diagnosticians. In other words, the public authorities who support this situation have a heavy responsibility for the legitimate feeling of mistrust that exists with regard to DPEs.

The new UFC-Que Choisir survey reveals that certification is in no way a guarantee of quality, which demonstrates a defect in the certification framework but also in the quality controls of the services provided by the diagnosticians.

It should be underlined that the discrepancy could be encountered both by having recourse to networks and to independents… Consumers are therefore today largely deprived of making contact with a diagnostician in complete confidence.

Committed to making the DPE a tool usefully enlightening the owners on the work to be undertaken, and ensuring that future buyers or tenants have reliable information on the energy performance of the property, the UFC-Que Choisir asks:

• To make the DPE's claims on the recommended work opposable to the diagnosticians
• To thoroughly review the certification system to assure consumers that the use of a certified professional is a real guarantee of quality.

Notes

(1) Complete survey results available in the October issue 617 of Que Choisir magazine, currently on newsstands.

(2) http://diagnostiqueurs.din.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/index.action