Unlike some of the cynics on this thread, I am all for 'green' energy saving measures to make homes more energy efficient and better insulated.
However, I have a problem with this "Green Deal". I just don't see the benefit of using the scheme. As a landlord I am encouraged to tag on any costs (ie the loan) to an electricity bill where tenants are left paying it off, but apparently not paying any more than they would have been before the improvements were made.
This might (just) be acceptable for the current tenants, but what about the next tenants or the next lot after that? They will see a property which will (presumably) have a reasonably good energy performance rating on the EPC, but they will be asked to pay the bills as if it had a lower rating. They'll be consuming lower energy, but paying higher bills. Where is the fairness in that? If I were the tenant I would look elsewhere.
Likewise, when I come to sell the property, if there is still an amount outstanding to be paid off from the Green Deal loan, it transfers to the new owner for them to continue paying. Hands up any buyers here who would agree to keep paying charges for improvements made on a property undertaken some years before? Again - I certainly wouldn't. I'd insist that the vendor paid off any loans before I agreed to buy the property.
So I'd be very keen to know why I should bother with the green deal. Anyone?
As a footnote to this, I am very disappointed in the NLA (National Landlords Association) for promoting the Green Deal when it clearly is NOT beneficial to Landlords (unless someone can explain to me why it is). I note the NLA are about to launch an "NLA Green Deal" product which to my mind immediately taints their ability to be objective and genuinely look out for their members' interests.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer). Anything I say here is just an opinion, so should not be relied upon! Always check your facts with a professional who really knows their onions.