Are decision-makers suffering from delusions of competence on EPC rules?

What happens if the EPC level can't be met without collective action in a leasehold building?

Nuclear power stations ARE be built, not for us plebs but fir all the new data centres that are our virtual prison walls that will know more about you than you do yourself.

We have a few statutory tenants who have written us letters denying access for energy performance improvements.

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 10/02/2025 - 10:13
If other Leaseholders are owner occupiers they do not have to even have an EPC until selling, or renting out their property so they cannot be expected to put a penny towards and upgrading for Leaseholders who rent out their property. So liability for any collective action for upgrading anyone's EPC is no existent.

It is also not for the freeholder(s) to pay anything towards upgrading EPC's.

"Further, the government thinks landlords should spend up to £15k on a property to achieve a £240 a year saving for the tenant on hearing bills. The math would show it would take 40 years to get your money back, a horrendous return."
I thought I was good at maths, though I make it not 40 years but much worse: 62.5 years - an even more horrendous return!
Indeed, neither is really a "return" at all if, as is the case most of the time, annual inflation is more than 2.5% (or 1.6% if my version is correct).
Quite frankly, it seems to me that a landlord could be much better off by, instead, simply giving the tenant a £20 (or even £30) per month discount.

I think this is biased - a different perspective can also be applied
1) Comparing a capital cost to a payback-rate is not alwats valid. 40 year payback is likely the worst case. But in theory at least, the dwelling's capital value will increase if the remedial works are applied. So not all the remedial costs need to be recouped
2) Some (many?) of the current rental dwellings that can't be economically remediated will end up for sale. These might then be redeveloped and multiple high quality dwellings provided on a site previously had a single low quality dwelling. So we end up with more housing
3) The additional new-builds may then enter the rental sector - strengthening the rental sector.

I agree, nuclear is the UK's (and most of the world's) answer to clean energy. One small rock of uranium can power a city versus acres of solar and even more inefficient wind turbines. Practically, I think a lot of the skills for building nuclear plants have retired or died; investment is needed to address this, but perfectly achievable. Other countries have embraced modern nuclear for clean cheap energy but will the UK? Not holding my breath.

Reply to the comment left by Ron H-W at 10/02/2025 - 11:10
A lot of these older houses are already significantly cheaper to rent than modern more energy efficient ones, so the tenants are already receiving a discount way in excess of any extra energy costs.

Scotland is even more delusional as ALL rental properties HAVE to be C by 2028. Two years early so at least we can watch the car crash in Scotland first.

Reply to the comment left by Ron H-W at 10/02/2025 - 11:10
Of course the saving is for the tenants not the landlord so rents have to rise to get any return at all on the money.