In-house vs consultant energy assessment
In-house teams can manage registers and evidence efficiently; accredited consultants are required to lodge certificates and are usually better value on complex modelling and portfolio strategy.
Larger estates increasingly run some energy compliance internally. The dividing line is accreditation and modelling depth: EPCs, DECs, Part L submissions and Section 63 Action Plans must be produced by assessors accredited under an approved scheme, and complex buildings need dynamic simulation skills that are hard to keep current on a handful of assets a year.
In-house vs Consultant, attribute by attribute
| Attribute | In-house | Consultant |
|---|---|---|
| Can lodge statutory certificates | Only if accredited | Yes |
| Complex modelling capability | Rarely maintained in-house | Core competency |
| Cost on high volume | Lower marginal cost | Framework pricing |
| Independence for investors | Lower | Higher — regulated and insured |
| Regulatory currency | Hard to maintain | Continuous CPD across schemes |
Which one applies to you
Choose In-house when
- /Maintaining certificate registers, expiry tracking and evidence
- /Coordinating site access and building data
Choose Consultant when
- /Statutory lodgement, DSM, Part L and Section 63 work
- /Portfolio strategy that investors or lenders will rely on
The most efficient arrangement we see is a client-side estates team owning the data and access, with us owning accreditation, modelling and lodgement under a framework.
Common questions
+Can our facilities manager produce our EPCs?
Only if they hold current accreditation at the right level for the building; otherwise the certificate cannot be lodged.