It has come to our attention that there may be two versions of the Product Characteristics Database (PCDB) in use at the same time by at least one accreditation scheme. 

This is a significant concern, and we call upon all accreditation schemes to make sure that the PCDB is being promptly updated across all their software versions as soon as it is released at the end of each month by the BRE. 

New, high efficiency products are being brought to market at a rapid rate and being added to the PCDB. It is essential that all Energy Assessors are able to appropriately include them in EPCs as soon as possible. 

As far as we have been able to ascertain, desktop versions of EPC software are having the PCDB updated within days of release. However, it appears there may be a significant delay with some mobile versions of the software. This is a significant problem for assessors using mobile software. 

The specific instance that brought this to our attention, was an assessor unable to select a newly installed heat pump in their tablet-based software. It was a model that was available in another scheme’s tablet-based software. By challenging the scheme on the missing product, we established that the heat pump was also available to select in the same scheme’s desk based software. In this case the assessor was able to upload the draft EPC from the tablet, edit it in the desktop software and lodge. A far from ideal scenario. 

The difference in the EPC rating between selecting the actual product and using the defaults applicable if the product is not found in the database are significant. As a result, Assessors lodging an EPC using the tablet software would produce a significantly lower rating than assessors with the same scheme using the desktop software. 

This in our view is not an acceptable position and we call on all schemes to ensure that all of their software is updated promptly so none of their assessors are left using an out of date PCDB. 

Beyond the harm done to the client if the EPC rating is lower than it should be because of out of date data in the software, there is potential harm to the assessor. If the mobile software is updated between the survey and an audit (or the EPC is audited in desktop software against an EPC produced in mobile software), the assessor will potentially fail audit for not selecting a product that is in the database. 

We can defend them against that if the product has been added to the PCDB in the period between survey and audit as the PCDB shows the date it was added. Overturning the audit failure on appeal should be straightforward. We have no way of knowing what date the product was added to the mobile software if it was delayed. The assessor risks audit failure for something entirely the fault of their scheme and we will have no way of proving that is what happened. 

It is imperative that the monthly updates to the PCDB get into all schemes’ software, across all platforms, within the first few days of release. If that means the method of updating the PCDB in the mobile software needs to change so it is not tied to a software release, then that is what must happen. If it is simply the scheme not sufficiently prioritising the PCDB update, then from now on it needs to be given the priority it deserves.

Ian Sturt
12/11/2202