EPC - a legal requirement on a rental property?

[H&J]

I've read a fair amount about EPC's and I had one on my last property I rented out but I've not been able to obtain one for my present property I am renting.

The one thing that I've not been able to confirm through various searches is whether an EPC is a legal requirement on a rental property?

As a tenant I am having difficulty obtaining this document and I would really like to see it as my heating bills have been on the high side this Winter (even taking in to account the cold weather).

Do I have a right to be provided with a valid EPC?

[jjlandlord]

Yes, a valid EPC is a legal requirement in England and Wales for tenancies started on or after 1st October 2008 (£200 fine for non compliance)

[H&J]

Thankyou for confirming!

[mind the gap]

Thankyou for confirming!

It should have been made available to you when the property was being advertised to prospective tenants. They are a useful way of comparing overall costs of living in one property rather than another.

[mk1fan]

(even taking in to account the cold weather).


What about the 'cross the board' hikes in fuel costs in the Autumn?

EPC's are pretty meaningless in all practical senses. They should be seen as a very rough guide.

[mind the gap]

What about the 'cross the board' hikes in fuel costs in the Autumn?

EPC's are pretty meaningless in all practical senses. They should be seen as a very rough guide.

I expect OP has taken the fuel cost rises into account and yes, obviously they are not going to be 100% accurate for every tenant's fuel bill, all of the time.

But, unless you have a better suggestion (as to how Ts can realistically predict what their average-use fuel bills are likely to be in any given property - which is what an EPCs does), perhaps you will have to swallow your political pride and admit that at present, short of a crystal ball, they are the only means available to them of coming up with such an estimate and OP does right to ask about it.

How else are they supposed to find out?

[mk1fan]

But, unless you have a better suggestion


Well, the human race has survived nearly six thousand year just fine without them.

The problem with them is that they don't take into account how the property is actually used, merely a calculated average based upon the fabric of the building. I could run a 6-bed Georgian country house cheaper than someone could run modern three bed house.

There is no reason why a property being 'A' rated automatically means the occupier will have cheap untility bills. If they choose to leave the lights on perminantly, the heating set at 25 and every appliance running most of the time. Then they are going to have a big bill.

The opposite is also true. An 'E' rated property could be cheap to run.

My Tyneside flat that wouldn't have scored well on EPC cost me £300 a year in gas and electric. My OH spends that a quarter on her property that would score very well on an EPC (the property is twice the size so the difference isn't that bad).

As for a better solution, how about a return to common sense. If you don't use it, you don't pay for it.

[jeffrey]

Well, the human race has survived tens of thousands of years just fine without them.
Max. 5771.

[mk1fan]

corrected innit

[mind the gap]

Well, the human race has survived nearly six thousand year just fine without them.

The problem with them is that they don't take into account how the property is actually used, merely a calculated average based upon the fabric of the building. I could run a 6-bed Georgian country house cheaper than someone could run modern three bed house.

There is no reason why a property being 'A' rated automatically means the occupier will have cheap untility bills. If they choose to leave the lights on perminantly, the heating set at 25 and every appliance running most of the time. Then they are going to have a big bill.

The opposite is also true. An 'E' rated property could be cheap to run.

My Tyneside flat that wouldn't have scored well on EPC cost me £300 a year in gas and electric. My OH spends that a quarter on her property that would score very well on an EPC (the property is twice the size so the difference isn't that bad).

As for a better solution, how about a return to common sense. If you don't use it, you don't pay for it.

You do not seem to have grasped the principle of using them as a tool for comparison purposes. The projected bills are based on average use for a property of that size. So when a T (or a purchaser) is comparing similar-sized properties, it is clear whether one will be more or less expensive to run than another.

I think that it goes without saying that if the occupier leaves lights on, etc, it is going to cost him more in energy than if he is relatively frugal. But that is not the point. I would advise any T to go for a property they like with an EER of above 60% and to avoid anything with a rating below 40% unless they have money (literally) to burn.

[mk1fan]

I fully understand their purpose and how they supposed to work. I feel that they are a pointless tool that are easily manipulated and can easily be wrong.

Refering back to my OHs property that would score low 'A' / high 'B' rating. All the 'elements' are there for what on paper appears to be a very efficient house and thus form the basis of the rating.

However, having spent a considerable amount of time investigating the property, it is actually very poorly built with serious workmanship issues hidden behind the finishes - I'd also point out that it surpasses the then [and also the current] building regs - which make it, in practice, a very inefficient building.

This very simple - and not uncommon situation - makes a mockery of the EPC certs.

I've not said that LL should ignore their obligation to produce them. It's a requirement.

It's up to the Professionals of the Building Industry (RICS, ARB, RIBA) to lobby to for any changes to this system - which imo should be removing the requirement.

My last post on the thread.

[mind the gap]

If your OH's house is as badly built as you claim, then it is unlikely to have as high a rating as you say. Being 'badly built' in itself does not preclude its being relatively energy efficient, although if there are draughts, poorly installed dg or not as much insulation as was specified, then its rating may well be lower than that of the average new-build. The features which affect EE most are the thickness and degree of insulation of walls, roof insulation, size of windows and the type of glazing, and the boiler. The standard of plastering or wiring or even the brickwork and woodwork will not make any difference to how energy efficient it is.

[mk1fan]

With all due respect MTG you're speaking drivel. You demonstrate that have no clue about building elements, materials, details or indeed how they calculate EPC ratings if your last post is to be taken seriously. And you haven't read my previous post if you mention poor dg, plastering or blockwork. Re-read the third paragraph slowly.

EPC's are a check list. They do not involve anything more invasive than a walk around the property. Checking boxes on a form and a programme doing some a simple calculation. You have 10 boxes therefore you're efficient. There's no controlled testing of heat loss / air changes / energy consumption of a property involved at all.

I know that the under the 'EPC' the property would receive a very high rating. Indeed two sections are being 'tested' in the coming months simply to forefill the requirement to provide a cert. A waste of money as it will be inaccurate and not a true reflection of the actual performance of the property.

To make it very clear for you (as a layman) my OHs house (which was built 7-years ago) is what used to be refered to [on site] as 'super' insulated, that is levels of insulation (floor, walls and roof) that surpass the building regs (even todays higher standards). Has 'low-e' double glazed units that meet todays 'A' rating as do the frames which are thermally broken and double sealed. The boiler is a very efficient Keston unit - although a modern unit would provide a small increase in efficiency. There is also low energy lighting throughout.

All these wonderfull products that work so well when combined properly together and fill the EPC check list with positives are completely negated if cavities are not properly closed, if weatherings are not completely installed and if thermal continuity isn't maintained. Ie, if the basic putting together of a building is done badly, without care or attention to detail.

It's finished beautifully. The plastering is good, what visible brickwork is finished neatly, the cedar cladding is aging very well. It's all very Grand Designs. The fact still remains that becuase of poor workmanship that is hidden away, out of sight of unless you start opening up, the building as a whole performs very badly. And that only becomes apparent when the bills come rolling in.

An EPC survey only picks up that insulation is present, not whether is is laid correctly or continuously or abutted correctly. The inspector does no investigatory opening up up to check things. They simple tick boxes.

To put it another way you can have the finest ingredients in the world. That doesn't mean you're going to get gourmet food.

I've got the insulation, the efficient boiler, the quality double glazing therefore I MUST have an efficient house.

[mind the gap]

Groan. You promised #11 would be



My last post on the thread.

And I don't find your posts in the least bit respectful, so please dispense with the hypocrisy!

I'm sorry to learn that your OH's house was badly built. It does not however mean that EPCs generally are worthless. And that is my final word on the subject of your OH's house!

[mk1fan]

I find it disrespectful when people with little knowledge or understanding of subject matter needlessly repeat themselves to argue with someone who does have the knowledge.

You know very little with regard to building materials and fabrics so I don't see why you feel the need act like you do.

I find that you can be very rude and inciteful towards others and then act all shocked and 'hurt' when they respond and hide behind your post count as though it affords you special treatment/privilages.

You're certainly not one to be the hypocrisy monitor.

[mind the gap]

I find it disrespectful when people with little knowledge or understanding of subject matter needlessly repeat themselves to argue with someone who does have the knowledge.

You know very little with regard to building materials and fabrics so I don't see why you feel the need act like you do.

I find that you can be very rude and inciteful towards others and then act all shocked and 'hurt' when they respond and hide behind your post count as though it affords you special treatment/privilages.

You're certainly not one to be the hypocrisy monitor.I hope your toothache is soon better. For what it's worth, you have always come across as humourless, rather 'know it all' and all too ready to dismiss others' ideas or views, assuming you're the expert and they know nothing. I hope/expect you are nicer than that in real life, but I think we must agree to differ on this one, since I have no intention of getting into a personal argument with someone who posts this kind of unpleasantness. I'm sure you'll come trotting back with some sour, surly bit of abuse, but I shall not be wasting any more of my time on it, or you. All the best to you.

[mk1fan]

No toothache here. Perhaps you stop making assumptions and concentrate on stuff you do know rather than trolling to keep your post count up.

[quarterday]

Much as I hate EPCs and other clipboard wielding types, energy economy has become something about which to become ever more mindful when preparing accommodation for letting. We've been buying recessed spotlights fittings that take 240v GU10 LED lamps and these use about 3w rather than twenty times as much, and present no fire hazard unlike the old wound transformers.

Another useful device which is as yet fairly obscure is the heat recovery extractor fan. Rather than just sucking the heat out when the damp air is drawn out of the bathroom, this recovers at least three quarters of the heat. Works a bit like an air conditioning machine in reverse. These contraptions are £200 to £300 but as they can be used on humidistats and are most effective at controlling humidity without losing lots of heat they are actually worth it, as mould is pretty much endemic in solid walled older homes which have steaming showers installed. Have a look on eBay, all the top manufacturers of extractor fans offer them.

The irony is that the period properties to which most of us aspire tend to have far worse energy efficiency characteristics than more modern dwellings, yet the appeal of a Regency or Georgian home applies to both buyers and tenants!

There are ways to reduce the cost of heating of a period property, but potentially it is very expensive indeed. Brushes on sash windows is a relatively low cost item as is of course loft insulation. You are into big bucks thermally insulating Walls because the ultra efficient internal wall linings are double or even triple dear! Although itself not cheap, Sempatap is cost effective, I only wish I could find out where they get their supply of the remarkable latex wallpaper. This works out at about twenty or twenty five pounds per sq metre installed and redecorated, sounds a lot but it does make a big difference. Aerogel probably isn't worth at the moment at approximate triple the figure.

Heavy curtaining sounds obvious but isn't every one's cup of decaffeinated tea, however I would commend to you some roller blinds I have found that incorporate hexagonally shaped pockets of air, these reduce heat loss very spectacularly on single glazed sash windows, inexpensively and without losing the appeal of a 200 year old window!
If i could have my time again I think I would have bought for myself modern and ultramodern accom for letting, but I am not complaining.... Interesting to learn how to conquer the challenges!

[mind the gap]

Thanks, quarterday - some really good practical suggestions there. I'm still interested in that Sempatep stuff - is it £25 psm as installed by someone else? Can I not apply it myself? (I am an experienced, skilled decorator). Or are you saying that it cannot be bought retail?

[quarterday]

Yes £25 psm is what it would cost if you got the job done by a contractor. The material is about £140 for a roll 1m wide and 12.5 m long. The suppliers are MGC (Mould Growth Consultants Ltd). You are meant to use their glues but essentially its much the same stuff as the glue used for cork tiles. Likewise their own branded tubes of sealant can be substituted for a non silicant gun tube.

[Ericthelobster]

Another useful device which is as yet fairly obscure is the heat recovery extractor fan. Rather than just sucking the heat out when the damp air is drawn out of the bathroom, this recovers at least three quarters of the heat. Works a bit like an air conditioning machine in reverse. These contraptions are £200 to £300

Although itself not cheap, Sempatap is cost effective, I only wish I could find out where they get their supply of the remarkable latex wallpaper. This works out at about twenty or twenty five pounds per sq metre installed and redecorated, sounds a lot but it does make a big difference. But do you honestly think that either of the above are cost-effective for let properties, from a business point of view? I might consider them for my own house, but for a tenanted property where someone else is paying the energy bills, sorry - no way.

My properties have the basics done. like double glazing and maximum roof insulation, but I can see no justification for this sort of kit. I can imagine the blank looks on my prospective tenants faces when I tell them excitedly that I have Sempatap on the walls and a heat pump in the roof. Would make not the slightest difference to me in terms of monthly rent income or lettability.

Your market may vary, but the vast majority of my tenants either aren't interested, don't know, or don't care. Eg, I don't think I've ever even been asked whether the boiler is a condensing model or not; or how much insulation is in the roofspace - both of which will have significant impact on energy bills.

[mind the gap]

I suspect it is the case that, as with population as a whole, the average tenant's awareness of energy efficiency and the difference it can make to their cost of living, lags behind the scientists' and the industry's. 'Twas ever thus.

It is rather like private car ownership and use. If petrol prices continue to rise to even more eye-watering levels, eventually people will start thinking about swapping their gas-guzzlers for something more efficient, using public transport, walking, cycling or car sharing. They won't do it until they are financially forced to, though. Until the 1980s, this country had enjoyed a century of relatively cheap energy and old habits die hard. Research suggests people would rather cut back on food expenditure than on their cars.

I agree with Eric that at the moment some energy efficiency measures will mean nothing to tenants, and may not be cost effective to install at present. However, in 5-10 years time when (i) energy prices are even higher than at present and (ii) Ts have the choice of new builds which will be virtually free to heat and light and produce hot water for, the balance of what they expect in a rental property may shift a little.

[quarterday]

Tenants are increasingly discerning, especially in London and the South east where a three bed cottage in the best areas can be let at five hundred quid a week, such are values that this is still only a 5% return on capital.

And where older solid walled properties have been "flatted out" condensation is a problem and their is every incentive to improve the temperature to the touch of outside walls so that water vapour does not form and go mouldy.


But do you honestly think that either of the above are cost-effective for let properties, from a business point of view? I might consider them for my own house, but for a tenanted property where someone else is paying the energy bills, sorry - no way.

My properties have the basics done. like double glazing and maximum roof insulation, but I can see no justification for this sort of kit. I can imagine the blank looks on my prospective tenants faces when I tell them excitedly that I have Sempatap on the walls and a heat pump in the roof. Would make not the slightest difference to me in terms of monthly rent income or lettability.

Your market may vary, but the vast majority of my tenants either aren't interested, don't know, or don't care. Eg, I don't think I've ever even been asked whether the boiler is a condensing model or not; or how much insulation is in the roofspace - both of which will have significant impact on energy bills.

[theartfullodger]

EPC is a legal requirement for rental properties just like TV licences are to watch tele & not exceeding 70mph on the public highway in UK is a legal requirement...

I do try to adhere to the law

[Stacey surveys]

The way fuel prices has risen over the years , landlords and sellers of properties have a duty of care to their clients, to make them aware of the running costs of the concerned property. Yes, we have managed many years without EPCs, but the cost of fuel has never been so high.

The information on an EPC, used correctly will help your clients understand of the overall costs of taking on a property.

[islandgirl]

above post rather biased as Stacey surveys (verb)
In my humble yet rather experienced opinion EPCs are totally and utterly worthless and could be best used to prop up one leg on a wonky dining table...
If you want to know energy costs have a look at the last bill for the property - many energy companies now give you a predicted 12 month usage...not rocket science. Until then, Stacey will continue to survey and I will continue to pay for a useless document which in my experience has never put someone off a property on which they were keen - oh I rather enjoyed that.

[mind the gap]

If you want to know energy costs have a look at the last bill for the property - many energy companies now give you a predicted 12 month usage...not rocket science.

Glad you enjoyed your rant, but your argument has more holes than a string vest!

Asking to see 'the last bill' is probably pointless and certainly less helpful an indicator than an EPC of likely energy costs, (even assuming you mean the elec and gas bills together, not just the elec). This is because:

(i) tenants can rarely lay their hands on the last bills and their memories of the amounts in the absence of the bills themsleves are often wrong.
(ii) an EPC projects likely bills based on average usage for a property of that size. Although not an exact science, this is statistically more likely to be accurate than the bills of the current tenants - whose lifestyle may be much more frugal/wasteful of energy than the next ones.
(iii) I would not trust an energy company's projection of the next 12 months' bills - whereas a DEA has no agenda, no energy to sell you.

One day, probably in about 5-10 years' time when when more and more new homes are carbon-neutral, LLs will wake up to the fact that Ts don't want to live in properties which are going to cost them a fortune to heat and light...and they will both (in different ways) start to use EPCs to their financial advantage.

Intelligent LLs and Ts are doing this already.

O just call me a Prophet in the Wildnerness!

[islandgirl]

Thank you. My rant was intensely satisfying.
Make energy suppliers provide an annual statement of amounts spent and make giving one to potential tenants a requirement - bet that would be a darn site more accurate than any "average" - wasteful tenant or not!
EPC supporters have an agenda - keeping themselves in pointless jobs - you haven't taken on a sideline as a surveyor with Stacey have you MTG?

[mind the gap]

Make energy suppliers provide an annual statement of amounts spent and make giving one to potential tenants a requirement - bet that would be a darn site more accurate than any "average" - wasteful tenant or not! No, it wouldn't. For the reasons why not, see above, #29. Even if the providers were allowed to disclose that info (which they probably are not), there are significant differences between different tenants' expenditure on utilities so even an annual statement is thus of limited value to prospectives. Apart form anything else, patterns of occupancy (e.g. holidays, amount of time per day spent in the property) can vary wildly.



EPC supporters have an agenda - keeping themselves in pointless jobs - you haven't taken on a sideline as a surveyor with Stacey have you MTG? You are of course entitled to your opinion, although it is an illogical response to my point. A DEA does not care whether your property is energy efficient or not - his job is merely to assess it objectively and provide you with a report on that. If you act on his suggestions and improve its efficiency, he makes no profit from that - he probably won't even know you've done it. So whether or not you think his job is 'pointless is neither here nor there when considering which is the more accurate indicator, an EPC or the current Ts' last bill (if they can find it).

Energy providers are the last people I would trust to tell me what the bills will be!

It can however be instructive to compare the current Ts' bills (assuming they are happy to show you them - they might tell you to mind your own business!), with the annual cost projected by the EPC.

[quarterday]

EPCs software is most peculiar; electric heating is unfairly penalised due to assumptions as to loss of current along the miles of wire, whereas no calculation is made for the huge amount of gas that is flared off from oil and gas fields continuously for operational reasons. But certainly they have made us all more aware of the virtue of upgrading insulation wherever and whenever we can. All the rest of it is pretty much, as Boris would say "fooey"

[Brixtonia]

I think MTG is right. The energy assessment will be come more important over the next 5-10yrs.

I do think there is some work to improve the quality of the assessments. One common problem I had in the past was, because I mostly convert Victorian properties into flats, they would be classed as Victorian single brick property when assessing insulation thus giving dreadful report results. However, by law, most new conversions are brought up to modern insulation standards. Whilst I was able to explain that to the assessors and have my rating improved (usually mid 80s), many people (even developers) would not realise there was an error and would retain the poor rating.

[mind the gap]

I think MTG is right. The energy assessment will be come more important over the next 5-10yrs.

I do think there is some work to improve the quality of the assessments. One common problem I had in the past was, because I mostly convert Victorian properties into flats, they would be classed as Victorian single brick property when assessing insulation thus giving dreadful report results. However, by law, most new conversions are brought up to modern insulation standards. Whilst I was able to explain that to the assessors and have my rating improved (usually mid 80s), many people (even developers) would not realise there was an error and would retain the poor rating.

Yes. But if the assessor is properly qualified and doing his job properly (which some are not, believe me -generally the cowboys who charge only £30 - but aren't even registered), then s/he will be asking the owner about any changes to the original design/building which may affect its energy assessment. They should be able to tell if part or all of the property has been modifed and seek further info if need be, before produicing the report with the final rating.

[Brixtonia]

Yes. But if the assessor is properly qualified and doing his job properly (which some are not, believe me -generally the cowboys who charge only £30 - but aren't even registered), then s/he will be asking the owner about any changes to the original design/building which may affect its energy assessment. They should be able to tell if part or all of the property has been modifed and seek further info if need be, before produicing the report with the final rating.

These chaps were all employed by HIPs companies which we were paying £300 plus per unit for a HIP (incl. savings based on combined searches, visits, etc..) on new developments of 3-4 flats at a time. They blamed software not being flexible enough although they were clearly able to amend the details after I raised the question.

I take your point about cheapo rush jobs and appreciate there is some truth to that but people need to be free to choose the cheapest EPC provider with confidence that they have been properly qualified and will do an accurate report. How will your average punter know what level it should be priced at? Get three quotes and take the middle one? Or the most expensive? Will that guarantee a better job? If the prices were standardised like car MOTs would that solve the problem?

If you got three quotes from structural engineers you would not expect the house to stand for longer if you paid more.

Having been sceptical at first I am warming to the general principle of the rating for the mid-long term. But I will seriously begrudge the EPC if these issues of consistency and reliability aren't sorted. It doesn't matter how good the best assessors are - if 10 or 20% of the assessments are badly flawed then you cannot trust the system.

[mind the gap]

These chaps were all employed by HIPs companies which we were paying £300 plus per unit for a HIP (incl. savings based on combined searches, visits, etc..) on new developments of 3-4 flats at a time. They blamed software not being flexible enough although they were clearly able to amend the details after I raised the question.



Not all DEAs were trained as HIP producers first. Some saw HIPs for the waste of time they were and just did the EPC training.

[Brixtonia]

I don't know but I doubt the DEAs were the same people who were producing the HIP - it was a legal firm so they would have contracted in the DEAs for the EPC part. I think some version of the HIP would work. Needs to be done on consultation with banks since they usually ignored what was in the pack and required everything to be done again.

[islandgirl]

How will your average punter know what level it should be priced at? Get three quotes and take the middle one?

Nope - get the absolute cheapest you can which will satisfy a pointless regulation and get on with doing things which actually have a purpose.

[Stacey surveys]

Nope - get the absolute cheapest you can which will satisfy a pointless regulation and get on with doing things which actually have a purpose.

Energy prices are at an all time high and due to rise, employment and wages are at a all time low, what purpose could EPCs possibly have:confused:

Yes, you carry on paying for the cheapest EPCs,
and then be prepared to pay for them again at some point in the not to distant future.

[Stacey surveys]

However, having spent a considerable amount of time investigating the property, .
I am sure that we could also spend a considerable amount of time investigating properties, yes thats the way foward. Now how much will that bump up the cost of an EPC?

[islandgirl]

Yes, you carry on paying for the cheapest EPCs,
and then be prepared to pay for them again at some point in the not to distant future.

Why would I have to if they are from an accredited source? Charge more and make more money is the mantra of some EPC providers....

[mind the gap]

Why would I have to if they are from an accredited source? Charge more and make more money is the mantra of some EPC providers....
I repeat : if anyone offers to do an EPC for less than £30-£40 (below which it is really not worth a real DEA's while to do it), then ask to see their registration/DEA ID number and check it out with their accreditor or with http://www.nesltd.co.uk/The bogus ones tend to make excuses and disappear, at that point.

[islandgirl]

That's fine and I agree - check the accreditation. Once you know they have it go for the very cheapest you can find who will supply you with your pointless piece of paper!

[mind the gap]

That's fine and I agree - check the accreditation. Once you know they have it go for the very cheapest you can find who will supply you with your pointless piece of paper!

islandgirl, do you think it is in principle pointless to know the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles, domestic appliances and other things which consume non-renewable fuel sources?

If so, then we must agree to disagree - but when Libya's oil wells go up in flames, it may serve to sharpen all our minds somewhat about how much fuel we need and how much it is going to cost us.

If not, then what is your suggestion for a better system of determining energy efficiency, since you clearly think EPCs are worthless?

[islandgirl]

No in principle it is not wrong to know the efficiency of a tumble drier or car for example.
However I think it is up to the individual to take action on the fuel they use and how much it costs them
I firmly believe that noone will decide for or against a property due to a little bit of paper with a "rating" on it. We don't need a better EPC -type system, we need no pointless system at all.
Oh I enjoyed that.

[jeffrey]

But I bet that mind the gap will explain a contrary view!

[islandgirl]

Why else would we bother posting anything Jeffrey?

[mind the gap]

No in principle it is not wrong to know the efficiency of a tumble drier or car for example.
However I think it is up to the individual to take action on the fuel they use and how much it costs them
I firmly believe that noone will decide for or against a property due to a little bit of paper with a "rating" on it. We don't need a better EPC -type system, we need no pointless system at all.
Oh I enjoyed that.

You must enjoy illogicallity, in that case!

How on earth can the individual 'take action' to control his energy costs/carbon footprint/both, ie seek out a more energy-efficient, cheaper-to-run property/car/tumbledryer/heating system, or reject a less effcient, energy-guzzling one, unless he first knows how much fuel/energy a machine/property is going to need?

And why is it a good idea for us to know the energy costs of 'a tumbledryer or a car for example', but not a home, when the cost of heating and lighting residential properties is many times more significant in the average family's/tenant's budget than running a t/dryer and probably equivalent to or higher than the cost of fuelling his car?

Finally, you have still failed to explain how the consumer is supposed to KNOW these things objectively (so that they can compare and 'take action', without something like an energy efficiency rating. Your only suggestion so far is that a new T should ask the old T what the electricity bill was. I have demonstrated earlier why that is hardly objective!

So what's your solution? Seriously, I'm interested!

[islandgirl]

You were right Jeffrey

MTG - I don't shop for a house like I do for a tumble drier. If the house isn't energy efficient I stick more lagging in the loft or buy some draught excluders. People do not choose a house based on some useless "rating" (nor do they rent one based on it). They rent cos it is the right size, near a good school, has nice views, is in a decent area, is on a bus route, is close to the station etc etc, not cos it is A-rated or whatever silly designation it is given by an EPC.

[mind the gap]

MTG - I don't shop for a house like I do for a tumble drier. If the house isn't energy efficient I stick more lagging in the loft or buy some draught excluders. People do not choose a house based on some useless "rating" (nor do they rent one based on it). They rent cos it is the right size, near a good school, has nice views, is in a decent area, is on a bus route, is close to the station etc etc, not cos it is A-rated or whatever silly designation it is given by an EPC.

Tenants often cannot afford to make their homes more energy efficient by installing insulation, etc., and it's the LL's job to do that, not the T's. Ts especially need an objective way of guaging/comparing properties' energy efficiency; that's what an EER is.

So you have no solution to the contradicton that whilst you think people should 'take action' over their own energy expenditure, you think that the energy efficiency ratings which would enable them to do so, are 'silly'?

Give us a clue.

[islandgirl]

no, none
I still think EPCs are the biggest waste of time possible (apart from reading a celebrity gossip magazine though perhaps the mag is more useful cos at least you can burn it afterwards)

[jeffrey]

Energy rating or energy ranting?

[islandgirl]

waste of energy...

[leaseholdanswers]

I think you both have a point.
-most ignore it/are confused/too worried about moving and getting time off,
-some may see that an aspect is particularly terrible, realise it's value to them and/earth and move on, and,
-some may want it to manage their carbon footprint.

I think that they are of little interest to the majority of renters. I think they are a good thing, but badly executed.

Thankfully Libya produces a lot of oil but it's only 2% of the worlds consumption. The US has lifted the gulf oil drilling moratorium, and dusting off strategic reserve licences, so that will postpone the inevitable day for a bit longer.

[mind the gap]

I think that they are of little interest to the majority of renters. I think they are a good thing, but badly executed.
So how should/could the system be improved, do you believe?



Thankfully Libya produces a lot of oil but it's only 2% of the worlds consumption. The US has lifted the gulf oil drilling moratorium, and dusting off strategic reserve licences, so that will postpone the inevitable day for a bit longer.

Quite possibly, but you can bet your bottom dollar the price to consumers will continue to rise.

[mind the gap]

no, none
I still think EPCs are the biggest waste of time possible (apart from reading a celebrity gossip magazine though perhaps the mag is more useful cos at least you can burn it afterwards)

Your 'argument' falls apart completely at this point!

On the one hand, you think EPCs are pointless/a waste of time. On the other, you say the individual must take responsibility for his/her own consumption of energy and make choices accordingly.

The two positions are irreconcilable since the second is dependent on the first - unless you can suggest an alternative means of accurately assessing energy efficiency so that consumers may make those informed choices?

You admit yourself unable to do that, so do you really have an argument at all?

Just to make you feel even better, I can reveal that EPCs will also be required for holiday lets later this year...which you'll no doubt condemn as sheer madness, as unlike long-term Ts, holidaymakers really don't give two hoots about the energy bills for the two weeks they're on holiday (even assuming they pay them, which they don't always...) but I will let you rant about that yourself! :)

[Stacey surveys]

Why would I have to if they are from an accredited source? Charge more and make more money is the mantra of some EPC providers....

I think the the ten year EPC as it stands, will be around for a lot longer than the £30 energy assessor, accredited or not!

[Stacey surveys]

go for the very cheapest you can find who will supply you with your pointless piece of paper!

The same pointless bit of paper that may well soon govern the amount of council tax your tenant pays?

[islandgirl]

Hi Stacy I am selling EPCs - wondered how long it would be before you were back!Thanks for removing the ad though...

Yes they are pointless. Leasehold at least comprehends my viewpoint! For every one who takes any notice of them there are thousands who will not.

Holiday lets - my goodness what next! I will have to calm down before I post....

[islandgirl]

MTG = will it apply in scotland? (crosses fingers and waits in hope...)

[midlandslandlord]

Your 'argument' falls apart completely at this point!

On the one hand, you think EPCs are pointless/a waste of time. On the other, you say the individual must take responsibility for his/her own consumption of energy and make choices accordingly.

The two positions are irreconcilable since the second is dependent on the first - unless you can suggest an alternative means of accurately assessing energy efficiency so that consumers may make those informed choices?


Ahem.

MTG, you have built your counter-argument on the assumption that EPCs are a "means of accurately assessing energy efficiency" - highly questionable, as previously demonstrated.

What will happen is what always happens - houses will be built to maximise the EPC tick-boxes, not to be energy efficient.

I'd have said simply make the information a regulated and required part of Estate Agency docs, and not pfaff around with new regulatory panjandums (r eft out deliberately).

If you want pause for thought, consider that the the training to be able to do an EPC is only slighty shorter than the training required to be able to do an HHSRS assessment - 1 day vs 2 days when I looked :-), and HHSRSs in the hands of those not competent enough are a far bigger worry.

ML

[mind the gap]

MTG, you have built your counter-argument on the assumption that EPCs are a "means of accurately assessing energy efficiency" - highly questionable, as previously demonstrated. I have never claimed it is a perfect system, although it is based on physical and material science. There are anomalies in some buildings and if people are sad enough to run round inserting low-energy lightbulbs and faking insulation levels just to 'fox' the DEA, then more fool them. They are missing the point, really, aren't they? In any case, the majority of EPCs in the UK do actually project annual energy bills pretty accurately in line with average costs based on standard occupancy, so it is not 'pointless' at all. It is best we have and so far none of you prophets of doom have managed to suggest anything more reliable as an indicator of energy efficiency in properties. Academic research continues and will I'm sure suggest improvements.


What will happen is what always happens - houses will be built to maximise the EPC tick-boxes, not to be energy efficient. Such cynicism in one so young...I do not agree. What would be the point? The building costs of new carbon-neutral homes are no more than for building low-efficiency homes. Which 'tick boxes' on EPCs do you think would lead to low-energy efficiency homes being built instead?


I'd have said simply make the information a regulated and required part of Estate Agency docs, But estate agents are nothing to do with rental properties and I would trust a DEA much more than an estate agent.


If you want pause for thought, consider that the the training to be able to do an EPC is only slighty shorter than the training required to be able to do an HHSRS assessment - 1 day vs 2 days when I looked :-), and HHSRSs in the hands of those not competent enough are a far bigger worry.I agree with you about the H & S training; I think you are mistaken about the DEA training; (it is not normally a one-day course). In the end what matters is that any training is sufficiently rigorous/fit for purpose and I have seen no evidence that large numbers of DEAs are bumbling around doing the job incompetently. Their work is monitored more frequently and rigorously than the work of a builder, for example, there is a CPD requirement of 10 hours p.a. and some DEAs have been de-registered for being below the required standard.

[mind the gap]

MTG = will it apply in scotland? (crosses fingers and waits in hope...)

No idea, sorry.

[islandgirl]

it had better not!

[quarterday]

There is an article in this week's Estates Gazette which says, in effect that the proposed new Energy Bill which is working it's way through parliament will have the effect of barring the letting of residential accommodation scoring less than band E within a year or so and likewise by 2019 requiring a grade D. This will not effect owner occupiers. Interesting!

Hopefully there will be an exemption for conservation area and or listed buildings, as the software used at present disregards thermal mass and assumes a two foot thick solid solid wall to be two bricks thick. Accordingly historic property earns very low scores even if it is in reality not as bad as the rating suggests! In reality listed single glazed windows may be insulated by heavy curtains but the assessor is required to ignore same.

[jeffrey]

Just as I presciently predicted, back in August 2008. See http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?12909-How-not-to-legislate&highlight=legislate

[mk1fan]

I am sure that we could also spend a considerable amount of time investigating properties, yes thats the way foward. Now how much will that bump up the cost of an EPC?

It would bump up the price considerably. But at least the resultant rating would be accurate.

[mk1fan]

I can imagine the blank looks on my prospective tenants faces when I tell them excitedly that I have a heat pump in the roof.


The reference was to a through the wall heat recovery extractor fan that replaces a 'normal' through the wall extractor that you would have in a bathroom rather than a ducted and balanced whole house ventilation system.

They are very expensive when compared to a 'normal' extractor (the Expelair version is around £250 iirc). However, if you have a moldy bathroom or kitchen that the T insists they heat and ventilate, then this type of extractor is a cheaper option than yearly repair works.

[islandgirl]

the whole point is that we don't need a "better system" - we don't need a system at all - in my view and the view of many others. If this is not your view, fine. Don't stress.
And anyone who finds my "yawn" post patronising isn't equipped to deal with the cutting comments and general "put downs" provided by everyday life...I am sure that doesn't apply to you MTG - were you stressed about something else when you posted cos you can usually take a light hearted jest.
I think you are wrong - you think I am wrong - let it go love, let it go!

[Stacey surveys]

It would bump up the price considerably. But at least the resultant rating would be accurate.

Well, I agree you do pay for what you get in this world. I am up for it, would beat working for £50 EPC's.

[Stacey surveys]

Hi Stacy I am selling EPCs - wondered how long it would be before you were back!Thanks for removing the ad though.....

I try not to think of it as selling EPCs, more carrying out gods good work, but of course the bills have to be paid in the meantime. unfortunately, I only cover the South Wales area though, see you scouting there for a good EPC supplier.

[islandgirl]

I try not to think of it as selling EPCs, more carrying out gods good work, but of course the bills have to be paid in the meantime. unfortunately, I only cover the South Wales area though, see you scouting there for a good EPC supplier.

very nice reply! Not so sure about God's work though - EPCs are more like the Devil's in my book!

[Richardo]

Why are EPCs for properties such an emotive issue? They cost very little, last for ten years and make recommendations for improving energy efficiency. Presumably the anti brigade are those fortunate enough that their domestic fuel costs are a low percentage of their income, so they couldn't care less, or in the case of their tenants don't give a damn about their welfare.

Looking at past energy bills reflects lifestyle more than the building's performance. If I drive my car at a steady 56 mph I get 86 mpg, if I drive at 80 this drops to 38 mpg, presumably that's why a standard EPC was produced for cars so a buyer can compare the fuel efficiency between models. Hardly rocket science but when the same is applied to properties were are told it's the "devils work".

I find this forum really helpful as there are a good number of intelligent, informed posters prepared to share their knowledge, and they have my gratitude and thanks. But there are others I have no respect for....

[mk1fan]

Not sure about emotive being the right word.

The issue that I have with them is their inaccuracy. The assumption that because certain materials are present then the building is efficient and vice versa.

The point has already been made about there being no method of allowing for solid masonry walls thicker than 1-brick or 225mm. There are clear benefits to, for example, a 450mm or thicker solid masonry wall but these can't be factored in. This type of construction is not rare or unique. My Tyneside flat had 350mm thick solid walls.

The assessment takes no account of workmanship either. A very good example of this is the Cardiff Passivhaus (and I summerise a lot of ongoing work and research). A very efficient design, built to Passivhaus requirements but let down but minor workmanship issues that meant it just missed meeting the required standard.

Now this is a building where enthusiastic,dedecated people where building it with care and attention. Imagine the workmanship on a run of the mill house?

And as you point out, ultimately, it comes down to how the end user, er, uses the property.

[mind the gap]

Why are EPCs for properties such an emotive issue? They cost very little, last for ten years and make recommendations for improving energy efficiency. Presumably the anti brigade are those fortunate enough that their domestic fuel costs are a low percentage of their income, so they couldn't care less, or in the case of their tenants don't give a damn about their welfare.

Looking at past energy bills reflects lifestyle more than the building's performance. If I drive my car at a steady 56 mph I get 86 mpg, if I drive at 80 this drops to 38 mpg, presumably that's why a standard EPC was produced for cars so a buyer can compare the fuel efficiency between models. Hardly rocket science but when the same is applied to properties were are told it's the "devils work".

I find this forum really helpful as there are a good number of intelligent, informed posters prepared to share their knowledge, and they have my gratitude and thanks. But there are others I have no respect for....

Well-said, Richardo. It takes courage to say things like that on this forum. There should be a sign above it, warning 'Here be Dragons'! I agree with you that 'emotive' is exactly the right word for some of the knee-jerk reactions here to energy-efficiency issues. (On the positive side, at least the abuse and false accusations in this thread have been removed - thanks to Mods for that).

Thanks to you for a well-expressed and well-reasoned post.

[islandgirl]

Well-said, Richardo. It takes courage to say things like that on this forum.
Thanks to you for a well-expressed and well-reasoned post.

Courage? To type something and let a few people moan at you? I show more courage crossing the road near my house!
Agree it was a well expressed post. In my view it is wrong. Tenants don't give a damn about EPCs - another viewing today and once again not a shred of interest in them - I have never yet been asked for one.
I salute Ricardo nevertheless (in the true spirit of a fair forum!)
Perhaps you can confirm if I am one of those you have no respect for - it will make my day. It will probably be the first time I have ever upset anyone here - being the nice person I am.

[mk1fan]

I think my dictionary definition of 'courage' must be wrong.

[midlandslandlord]

I line up alongside mk1fan on this, but add:


They cost very little, last for ten years and make recommendations for improving energy efficiency.

No they DON'T. They are inaccurate at the start - as mk1 commented - and last until you change something, then they are even more misleading.

If your current tenant gets cavity insulation in, then you need a new EPC.

I think that the separate expensive regulatory gubbins was unnecessary (and a typical artifact of idiot-Labour, but I'll leave that aside on this thread - sensible Labour does exist, of course) - all that was needed was to require the information to be in Estate Agent details, and a requirement introduced that those details should be able to be relied upon, as opposed to the current "if this turns out to be a load of baloney, we refuse to take responsibility for our statements" clauses.

For rented properties it's just one more expense which has to be passed to the poor tenant, albeit a small one.

The one that really gets me steamed up at present is that tenants also have to fund the percentage of Enforcement Notices where the process is not followed.

ML