Updates on UK Notified Bodies Post-Brexit Directives and Potential Industry Initiatives
•
Directives such as GAD/GAR, and Boiler Efficiency Directive derived elements of
ErP, require “third-party” certification
•
Whilst much concerning Brexit is unknown at this time, is the pursuit of mutual
recognition (as exists now between EU member states) something the UK
heating industry wants to see?
6. Status of UK Notified Bodies
post-Brexit
•
Will Griffiths (BRE) has written to HHIC regarding a potential technical auditing
test procedure for appliances, based on market intelligence, and also randomly.
BRE would appear to have a framework in place, although BEIS have no funding
for this exercise, so they have suggested HHIC may consider a funding pot, also
dependant on BRE winning the contract for the SAP/SBEM work, which is up for
tender.
•
Will has advised that product performance data held in the PCDB is
manufacturer declared (and owned), and is interested to know whether HHIC
might be interested in managing some form of fund, potentially via subscription,
for use during technical audits, and based on feedback from certain
manufacturers that are disappointed in perceived over-reporting by others (as
well as random testing). There is likely to be a cross-over with other trade
associations, such as heat pumps, where BEAMA may wish to be involved, and it
may or may not be appropriate that a single fund is created, although this would
likely need apportioning appropriately per technology type. BRE would not wish
to handle this fund.
7. BRE request
•
BRE’s initial thoughts are that this fund would be used to fund their time (if their
bid is successful) in administering technical audits, i.e. selecting products, liaising
with stakeholders, processing test results, and amending product data records.
To avoid conflicts of interest, BRE would also use a third-party contractor to
commission test laboratories (who would then purchase samples), based on a
competitive tendering process and with reference to the funds available.
•
They have stressed that this is just a concept at this time, but would
welcome HHIC’s view?
7. BRE request
•
HHIC have been contacted by BEIS concerning their contract with BRE, and the
listing of new appliances on the PCDB. BEIS advise that they have been
subsidising the full cost of product listings since PCDB inception in 1999, and are
now considering making changes so that the manufacturer bears the full cost,
e.g. £125 for new boiler listing would become £400, MCHP listings would rise
from £300 to £700
•
BEIS feel this situation (cost-sharing) may not be common knowledge, and
are looking to gauge some opinion from industry as to whether these
changes would represent a “fair” approach?
8. BEIS proposal –
costs of PCDB listing
The text discusses the status of UK Notified Bodies in the context of post-Brexit Directives such as GAD/GAR and Boiler Efficiency, highlighting the need for third-party certification. It also explores the potential for mutual recognition agreements in the UK heating industry post-Brexit, along with initiatives proposed by BRE regarding technical auditing test procedures for appliances and potential changes in cost-sharing for product listings on the PCDB. The industry is urged to provide feedback on these matters.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
6. Status of UK Notified Bodies post-Brexit Directives such as GAD/GAR, and Boiler Efficiency Directive derived elements of ErP, require third-party certification Whilst much concerning Brexit is unknown at this time, is the pursuit of mutual recognition (as exists now between EU member states) something the UK heating industry wants to see?
7. BRE request Will Griffiths (BRE) has written to HHIC regarding a potential technical auditing test procedure for appliances, based on market intelligence, and also randomly. BRE would appear to have a framework in place, although BEIS have no funding for this exercise, so they have suggested HHIC may consider a funding pot, also dependant on BRE winning the contract for the SAP/SBEM work, which is up for tender. Will has advised that product performance data held in the PCDB is manufacturer declared (and owned), and is interested to know whether HHIC might be interested in managing some form of fund, potentially via subscription, for use during technical audits, and based on feedback from certain manufacturers that are disappointed in perceived over-reporting by others (as well as random testing). There is likely to be a cross-over with other trade associations, such as heat pumps, where BEAMA may wish to be involved, and it may or may not be appropriate that a single fund is created, although this would likely need apportioning appropriately per technology type. BRE would not wish to handle this fund.
7. BRE request BRE s initial thoughts are that this fund would be used to fund their time (if their bid is successful) in administering technical audits, i.e. selecting products, liaising with stakeholders, processing test results, and amending product data records. To avoid conflicts of interest, BRE would also use a third-party contractor to commission test laboratories (who would then purchase samples), based on a competitive tendering process and with reference to the funds available. They have stressed that this is just a concept at this time, but would welcome HHIC s view?
8. BEIS proposal costs of PCDB listing HHIC have been contacted by BEIS concerning their contract with BRE, and the listing of new appliances on the PCDB. BEIS advise that they have been subsidising the full cost of product listings since PCDB inception in 1999, and are now considering making changes so that the manufacturer bears the full cost, e.g. 125 for new boiler listing would become 400, MCHP listings would rise from 300 to 700 BEIS feel this situation (cost-sharing) may not be common knowledge, and are looking to gauge some opinion from industry as to whether these changes would represent a fair approach?
