I'm a SAP assessor accredited with Elmhurst.

I find their software has quite a lot of bugs and it is generally pretty frustrating to use.

I find it hard to get through to their IT helpline and often when I leave a message it goes unanswered.

I find the people who are supposed to answer queries relating to the nitty-gritty of SAP are unable to provide answers because they don't really understand SAP.

In short, I am an unsatisfied punter, but having spent £700 on the software I am slightly stuck with Elmhurst as my accrediting body, and I need to be accredited to be the SAP assessor on Code schemes and to issue EPCs. I understand that all accreditors will require the purchase of their software in order to be accredited.

It seems to me that there is almost no accountability required by Elmhurst and they are allowed to continue pedalling this pretty fragile software. Frankly, it feels that they're out of their depth but the system allows them to be so.

I'm interested to know if I am alone in my frustration with this situation. If it turns out that there are lots of SAP assessors who are disillusioned with their accrediting body (not just Elmhurst), we might be able to put something together to send to the BRE. I spoke to the BRE's big SAP cheese not long ago and was pleasantly surprised to find that he is very interested to know of problems relating to SAP software. He also recognised the problem that at present in order to get SAP software approved by the BRE, the main criteria is that it performs the mathematical calculation correctly, and that little regard is given to the stability of a programme, let alone the quality of its support.

If anyone else has comments to make, post them here and if I amass a sufficient quantity of issues, I will send it to the BRE and see if they can introduce a bit more accountability for these accrediting bodies. Comments will be kept anonymous.

PS Yes I did recently post on something relating to this theme in someone else's question, but the subject title was different so may not have been read by many relevant to this.
PPS I'm also aware that there are those of you out there who resent SAP assessors and will be smirking at this post. Glad to provide you with some happiness!

Get the impression that some people find SAP assessors a frustrating layer of bureaucracy - I know it in fact from my clients... No offence is taken though!

Hi Delboy, i used a piece of software called superheat for a couple of years before they were bought out by elmhurst. Consequently I transitioned to Elmhurst and within weeks filed for a refund because i found the software terrible and twice the price of the very good and instinctive superheat. The refund took over 6 months to arrive and they were very unhelpful generally. Not wishing to mention any more company names but the NHER to me are leagues ahead. Very helpful, always answer questions, decent software but it does cost more and the course is 5 days long. I think i burned away about £3500 in hotel bills, software, membership etc etc etc but worth it in my eyes.
Regarding fostertoms input after completing this course it would be very easy to sit back and churn out bad buildings which pass sap. Heat pumps all the way. I am glad to be one of those who continue reading and learning and inputting as much of my brain and engineering degree into this as possible. And why im on here i guess!

http://tools.knaufinsulation.co.uk/

Have a look at this del before committing more money. Should be subsidised due to a tie-in with their product recommendation feature.

I'm a new member to this site and I qualified as an NHER SAP assessor last summer, I've only managed to get a few jobs but the few times I've used it the software seems pretty good, as agu say's there are a few bugs but NHER are quick to notify you and give you a solution to these problems. I'm looking forward to having a good read through some of the topics on this site and hope I'll be able to offer some advice and I know I'll learn a lot.

I realise I'm a little late in entering this conversation but I'm actually very satisfied with Elmhurst's software.
I have used it on a daily basis for a few years.

There have been a few technical/problems when uploading EPC's recently but on the whole I'm very happy with it.
I'm particularly happy with their helplines.
I've allways been able to speak to someone if I have a query regarding SAP assessments or a rare software problem.

NAPIT is only £295 per year including the cost of the software.

http://www.napit.org.uk/energyAssessors.asp

I am biased I use my software. We are the best value for money.
Regards
Paul

Just to add a comment on this old thread my experience of Elmhurst SAP software has been disappointing.

It is clunky to use and if working on a multiple property development (block of flats) you cannot make a universal change, i.e. if you want to see what an improvement in wall u-value across all dwellings would do you have to open each file and then change each figure. This causes us hours of unnecessary work all because their programmers refuse to incoporate this incredibly simple macro into their program. We have contacted Elmhurst and they have no plans to incorporate this.

In addition I recently asked them if they will be adding anything to incorporate BREDEM-12 into their software which is a calculation developed by BRE to figure in more realistic electricity consumption to include appliances and cooking in a home - Most london applications require this to be detailed now and yet Elmhurst apparently have no intention of incorporating it. NHER on the other hand already do and so we are planning to change our systems over to them.

Considering that we do over 2000 SAP calcs a year with them they showed no interest in taking on board any of our suggestions.

Thanks for the info Paul, looks very interesting, I have seen your postings on other subjects around the site and I think I have also downloaded your free software for a look in the past but never had time to have a go with it. I will chat to my colleagues about what you have on offer and see what they think.