Cry of anger and right of reply from a diagnostician

The profession of diagnostician is a regulated and certified profession. This profession is essentially governed by the decree of July 02, 2018. This decree defines the obligations of the profession of diagnostician, particularly restrictive and costly obligations. How many trades are there with a lifespan of just 7 years? How many professions are so closely monitored? How many trades are there where the professional can be suspended, and lose his trade? Suspension abused by public services and satellite organizations of this profession. The diagnostician is alone, he is easy prey. He does not have to be the head of the Turkish government and one or the other.

These public services which function in the second curtain, place themselves above the others, and neglect them. And in fact, create laws that are regularly inconsistent and unsuitable. And when it comes to assuming their responsibilities, there is no one left.

Admittedly, the profession of diagnostician goes in all directions. Few are the diagnoses in conformity, or regulations. Many diagnosticians do their job poorly. I absolutely do not associate myself with them. This profession is exciting and important, but all the texts and principles were written by the same people described above. The diagnostician does what he can with what he has, and with the texts given to him. We can say it is a mess.

But in the context of ECD, the bulk of the problems stem from its significant weaknesses. Weaknesses originating from the same reasons described above:

The DPE (according to the decree of October 08, 2021 (A2021) (pagination indicated in relation to the official journal))

1) Or impact of an interior staircase on the permeability of the walls!

• To be as clear as possible, I define an example, even if it is possible to take any. This example is close to a standard encountered (in my region):
  • It is an old house from 1850, 100m above sea level, in zone H1a (A2021.18.1 p123) renovated in 2020. The walls are 70 cm thick and the interior dimensions are 10m*5m, oriented North South. A gable is adjoining a similar building. The walls are exposed stone exterior and interior. The exterior joinery is 4 windows of 1*1,5m, 2 on the north side, 2 on the south side, with characteristics: wood in tunnel, 4/16/4, VIR, with seal and thick wooden shutter. The entrance door to the south is a French window with a base of 1*2m of the same characteristics. The floor, formerly earthen, is now a concrete slab of more than 10 cm (external perimeter used 27,8 m). The ceiling is 2,5 m, it is between wooden joists with 20 cm insulation between the joists. The ceiling is under the unfinished attic, accessible by a small insulated hatch. The roof is at 45° and the insulation of the roof is 20 cm, and very weakly ventilated. The roof goes all the way to the floor. The attic gables are also in exposed stone. The type C vertical water heater dates from 2020, is 150 liters, it is inside near the water points. The ventilation dates from 2020 is a simple flow and works only when using the water features. The heating consists of high-performance electric radiators from 2020 (with presence detection). Voluntarily no thermal bridge was put but it has no influence on the following demonstration. For simplification, the living area is rounded to 48 m2.
    
    
• The DPE gives the result F391/C12. The calculated primary heating energy is 14.838 kWh (926 to 1252 euros/year). This property is declared an energy sieve!
  
  
• The envelope permeability coefficient (A2021.4 p42) has become accessible and modifiable.
  • Compared to the old version (order of October 17, 2012 (A2012)), the chapter concerning the calculation of losses by air renewal (A2012.3.5 p30) has been completely revised. From now on, the permeability coefficient of the envelope is a function of the date of construction of the building whereas before it was a function of the presence of window seals and chimney hatches. Nothing to see. The same concrete block building built in 1947 and 1948 will see its coefficient reduced by a third without the slightest technical change... A concrete block building from before 1948 will have the same permeability coefficient as an old building with thermal inertia like described as an example... And the comparison can be made with any type of building. Also, the parameters e and f of 'several exposed facades' are new.
    
    
• It is possible to set a minimum value to know its influence, ie 0.1 (zero is not possible otherwise the default value will be used). The result gives F331/C10. So the permeability of the envelope of this building represents 60 points or 18% of the DPE.... (For a building whose old walls are characterized by thermal inertia!)
  
  
• The owner of this building decides to put a staircase to access his attic. He enlarges the header, and puts a slightly larger insulated hatch. I estimate that this staircase costs 2m2 of living space. From now on, the surface of the building changes to 46m2 and the same for the heated surface (!). The new DPE gives F405/C13, a negative impact of 3.6%!
  
  
• By repositioning the permeability coefficient of the envelope to 0.1, the result gives F343/C11. That is 62 points. So the internal staircase had an impact on the permeability of the building envelope!!!
  • The new equation for calculating losses Qvinf (A2021.4 p41), of which the permeability coefficient is part, has integrated the height under the ceiling (an average) and has attempted to create a volume with the living area...But looking at ready, by integrating the parameter n50, we notice that the heights under ceiling are simplified and disappear.... This leaves doubts about this reworked and badly finished calculation of losses!
    
    
• The multiplicity of coefficients inevitably raises the question of their possible redundancy. Even if a coefficient is defined differently compared to a second, what impact do they have between them? Are they complementary, intertwined or identical? Like this famous wall permeability coefficient with the wall transmission coefficient (A2021.3.2 p15). There are others: (see chapter on thermal bridges)

2) The living area

• The calculation of a building's energy performance should be based solely on scientific calculation. A building is a physical volume.
  
  
• However, the living area is the most important parameter of the DPE. The living area is nothing scientific. It is defined by article R156-1 of the construction and housing code. This surface measurement method is completely subjective.
  • Disappearing from the measurement, heated volumes such as:
    • Volumes whose height is less than 1.80;
    • The stairwells;
    • Door or window openings;
    • The interior partitions...
      
      
• Its lack of consistency with a scientific method gives perverse results. We can see it in the previous example.

3) Thermal bridges

• The tables for calculating thermal bridges between the DPE for recent buildings (A2012 p28), and the DPE including old buildings (A2021 p38), are strictly identical.
  
  
• Where is the study of thermal bridges in old buildings?
  • In the chapter on thermal bridges (A2021 p38), a vague sentence has been added "only walls and low floors made of heavy material (concrete, brick, etc.) are considered" compared to the sentence concerning heavy low floors (A2021 p56) "other floors in a heavy material (stone, old brick, earth...)" and leads to the conclusion that old heavy materials are not included in this first sentence, and therefore are absent from thermal bridges. .
    
    
• In the previous example, the 70 cm rubble stone walls are characterized by their thermal inertia. The thermal bridges of a low concrete floor inside a 70 cm rubble wall with thermal inertia cannot be compared to those of a concrete slab on which the concrete walls of the building rest (recent constructions). Likewise, for a wooden and tunnel carpentry in a wall with thermal inertia cannot be compared with those of a block or brick wall.

4) Transmission coefficient of low floors

• (A2021 p22), the first table concerning low floors on solid ground is valid for all buildings built before 2001 (!). It is wrong. The two straight columns Upb 0,34 and 0,31 are wrong, they correspond to columns 3,4 and 1,5! (the smaller the Upb coefficient, the better the result!)
  
  
• It is possible to do the test with the previous example: (2s/p = 4). If the Upb coefficient is improved to 0,46 the ECD gives F365/C12 (6,6% improvement), if it is improved to 0,45 the DPE gives G423/C14 (deterioration of 8,1%!), if it is improved to 0,37 the DPE gives F402/13!. All the DPEs of buildings built before 2001 on land are potentially false, even fundamentally false.
  • These tables defining losses from lower floors take into account the perimeter, the question of its redundancy with thermal bridges could also arise (A2021.3.2 p21 and 22). They also do not take into account the thermal inertia of the old walls.

5) Heating (compared to the previous example):

• If the electric radiators are replaced by old electric radiators (1980 for example), the DPE gives F399/C13. Almost the same. Suffice to say, compared to the DPE, that a toaster type radiator bought in a flea market at 1 euro, is more interesting than a latest generation radiator at more than 500 euros...
  
  
• Has there been a study on recent electric heaters?
  
  
• If the electric radiators are replaced (keeping the electric water heater) by a condensing oil boiler dating from 2020, supplemented by medium temperature hot water radiators, the DPE will be between E266 / E59 et F299 / F70 (depending on the parameters entered). If it is a second-hand oil boiler from 1991, the DPE will be between E281 / F64 et F313 / F74 ! (depending on the parameters entered). In any case, better than the latest generation electric heaters.
  
  
• If the electric radiators are replaced by an air/air heat pump, the DPE will give C174 / A5, (Scop 3.6) (with transmitters with presence detection).
  
  
• Thus the building in example renovated in 2020, with recent radiators, will undergo an audit whereas with a fuel oil boiler from 1991 no... The audit will probably tell him to throw away his recent radiators for a heat pump... Electric heating is to be banned.
  
  
• This point, combined with the issue of living space described in point 2, causes a tendency to fundamentally improve the energy performance of large surfaces, and conversely penalize fundamentally that of small surfaces. A building of 300m2 habitable with single glazing and low insulation will be in C/D, while a well-insulated apartment of 20 m2 will be in D/E. Small surface buildings are generally with electric heating, and large surface buildings generally opting for central heating.

6) Opposability of the DPE and Audit

• Although I have retrieved and read all the texts, I cannot find the text allowing me to go from this 2021 decree to the performance labels. Where is he ?
  
  
• Ademe has created an obscure DPE control engine. Compulsory control for the referencing of the DPE. Where is the version of this engine indicated on the DPE?
  
  
• The opposability of a DPE requires going back to the conditions of its creation in order to be able to compare a possible difference or flaw. This is not possible today. No software is capable of regenerating an ECD to previous conditions. Especially since the version of the Ademe engine is not known.
  
  
• In addition, the regular use of ellipsis in order A2021 leads to vagueness and uncertainty that should not occur (example point 3 thermal bridges). It is not the role of a possible formation to complete the obscure points. The diagnostician is solely responsible before the courts, and only the decree has legal value. Sentences such as "I was told that..." are worthless.
  
  
• Anah, before subsidizing an individual, calls on experts to assess the performance of the building. So today, there are three similar systems: DPE, Audit, Anah experts. This is to carry out similar work and arrive at similar conclusions.
  
  
• To date, following the mandatory regeneration required by the State of the first new version DPEs, following the first bugs in the decree... I am still waiting for its reimbursement! What country are we in, where the state forces people to work without paying them?

To complete this study and demonstrate the mess in which the diagnostician must face, I will open two parentheses on two completely different subjects:

The gas diagnosis

• The new decree of February 23, 2018 modifying the gas diagnosis entered into force on January 1, 2020.
  
  
• The new standard NF P45-500 of July 2022, used in the context of gas diagnostics, is recognized by the decree of July 25, 2022, it entered into force on January 1, 2023. That is 3 years after the entry into force of the decree of February 23, 2018.
  
  
• The standard took more than 4 years to adapt to the new decree, and it was 3 years late in relation to the application of this same decree... We can make the comparison to the few weeks given to the diagnosticians for adapt to the new ECD...
  
  
• But this new standard did not even realize in the meantime that articles L-134-6, R134-1, R152-11, R131-31, R131-33 (p86 and p91) had disappeared in favor of articles L134- 9, R126-15, R184-6, R153-2, R153-4!
  
  
• Similarly in p47 the use of a flexible tube (index 5 misplaced) is not for network gases but for containers...
  
  
• It is surprising in this new standard that the general cut-off device is still not part of it, whereas there are installations, collective or individual, where there is no means of stopping the gas between the meter and the device cut-off device. Some counters are not even accessible. Accessibility by the user of the gas meter as well as the possibility of turning off the gas before the meter should be compulsory and be a minimum.
  
  
• It is surprising that several new features such as the location of cylinders (art12.1) or the marking of gas pipes crossing a wall (art 10.2.2) have not been added. Who will inform and advise the individual? That, according to the decree, the switching devices must be maneuverable (art9.1) (obviously), whereas the standard requires (p38) to just carry out the check without maneuvering them. When should we check their maneuverability? When it's too late?
  
  
• But above all:
  • The decree of February 23, 2018 repealed the decree of August 02, 1977 (p25)
    
  • The order of February 12, 2014 defining the model and the method for carrying out the gas diagnosis is still based on this order of August 02, 1977 repealed. He has also forgotten the existence of the previous decree of August 24, 2010. This decree of August 24, 2010 is also based on this decree of August 02, 1977 repealed...
    
  • The new version of the NF P45-500 standard (p1 and 7) is still based on the decree of August 24, 2010...
    
  • This means that this little world relies on a repealed text. What is the value of a legislative text based on a repealed text?
    
    
• The diagnosticians must therefore apply a standard 3 years late, buggy, based on an obsolete model, a repealed decree, and without having taken the time to adapt the new features of the 2018 decree... Standard validated and recognized by the State through the decree of July 25, 2022...

Sanitation

• Even if the sanitation diagnosis is not part of the certifications, in general, the diagnosticians have added it to their course.
  
  
• SPANCs, in general, keep control of non-collective sanitation. They have the obligation to check them or have them checked regularly (every 10 years minimum).
  
  
• However, there are non-collective sanitations with pits in the open air, or having defective or particularly inefficient septic tanks. These non-collective sanitations have never been verified.
  
  
• This means that article L2224-8 of the general code of local authorities is not respected by SPANCs:
  
  • […] The municipalities determine the date on which they carry out the inspection of non-collective sanitation facilities; they carry out this control no later than December 31, 2012, then at intervals that cannot exceed ten years. [...]
    
    
• There are even new non-collective sanitation facilities rehabilitated and validated by the SPANC and non-compliant!
  
  
• There are also collective sanitation connected to the sump of a septic tank which itself is connected to the septic tank. Everything is functional. This time, it is articles L1331-1 and L1331-5 of the public health code that are not respected. And it's not the individual's fault.
  
  • Note that some grease traps have a central asbestos wall...
    
    
• Who is responsible for enforcing the texts of a public service?

The real estate diagnosis

The real estate diagnosis should be a profession of public utility, however:

• Sellers or lessors see diagnostics only as a legal obligation and don't care. Only the price matters to them.
  
  
• Buyers or tenants are unaware of this, and put the report in a corner and forget about it.
  
  
• Real estate professionals impose their conditions, team up with certain diagnosticians, manage, and go so far as to impose the price...
  
  
• Certification bodies (compulsory) divert the law which authorizes them to strike off a diagnostician. While the cancellation only exists in one particular case, they abuse it, and go so far as to use it as a late payment penalty. They charge a mandatory and indecent rate. Only the law of the stick counts for them. Their decisions are subjective, and they never justify them. Certification bodies have no added value, they bring nothing. Where is the respect for our constitution and for the human person?
  
  
• Exceptions are compliant and complete diagnoses. The diagnostician's duty to advise is even more rarely applied. The only thing that matters is the price competition...
  
  
• All this stifles diagnosticians who really want to do their job.

And yet, while I always take explanatory time, before, during, and after any diagnosis; whether they are sellers, landlords, buyers or tenants, everyone is always very interested, some even seek to participate in the diagnosis...

In conclusion:

• Normally, in any project, there is always an existence study, the purpose of which is, among other things, to report problems, or interesting initiatives...that is to say, to seek and collect feedback from 'experience. Where is she ?
  
  
• Where is the study of the energy performance of old buildings?
  
  
• Where is the order to switch from A2021 to energy labels?
  
  
• Have there been checks, validations, tests of this new decree A2021? Where are they ?
  
  
• Where are the standards consistency checks?
  
  
• Where are the utility controls?
  
  
• The diagnosticians have the obligation to take their responsibilities vis-a-vis the private individuals and the law. They are great pigeons, easy to access, for those who are unable to do so and who interfere with the profession. Where are their rights?

The State, instead of setting its sights on the diagnosticians, had better begin by sweeping in front of its door.

He should show a little more competence, responsibility, courage, humility and above all honesty.

The real estate diagnosis is a profession to be completely reviewed, it would be necessary that:

• Diagnoses are a recurring obligation; every 5 or 10 years depending on the diagnosis. Home insurance should be conditioned by it, like sweeping.
  
  
• We should create a real profession, a diploma. The diagnostician is the only profession with a validity date of only... 7 years!
  
  
• Diagnosticians should have an obligation to explain their reports once written, and present them to new occupants.
  
  
• The possibility of contacting the certification body by the individual in case of doubt should be clearly written.
  
  
• Real estate professionals should be banned.
  
  
• Certification bodies should have as their primary role the escalation of questions and problems and the feedback of answers. Their role could be precisely to validate these decrees, these standards and their consistency. The quality control of work, their method of linking, their behavior should be completely reviewed. You have to stop with the stick method. Their interventions should be based on the complaints of owners/lessors. A diagnostician should also be able to complain against this type of body.
  
  
• A research base with legal value should be put in place.
  
  
• Whether diagnostician or certification body, everyone should have the obligation to justify, report and detail each of their decisions. These are professions of judgment, of responsibility, to each one to assume.

You should also:

• Raise the collective and non-collective sanitation diagnoses to the level of the diagnosticians, and better supervise them.
  
  
• Create a health diagnosis, because when you see:
  • Buildings renovated and unworthy of being rented.
  • 1,5m of rubbish in a building, not being able to put a sheet flat, not being able to lie down on the bed without moving bags of rubbish, with spider cocoons in the sink...
  • Modified electrical installations, with a 90V current return in the microwave casing, an earth connection fixed to the electric post of the gable of the house, a junction box fixed to a piano, broken and forced boards. ..
  • a staircase without risers with a simple chipboard board as a step that bends with each passage.
  • ... This diagnosis should be essential.
    
    
• Remove the Carrez law without interest, in favor of the living space.

Finally, the State should play a role, its own not that of another, keep its place, and take into account the real experience of others. The DPE today is to be reviewed, and the audit is a caricature of the ambient mess.

Real estate diagnoses, if they are well done, are of public utility.

The fact that a minister decides to oblige diagnosticians to undergo training, with once again a barely veiled allusion to the possibility of suspending the diagnostician if he does not kneel, demonstrates once again the disrespect of the state vis-à-vis the law and the people, and remains in an irresponsible blindness.

For 50 years, the State has collapsed, it is rather the diploma of the enarques which should be questioned.