EPC madness: Are EPCRR judgements failing?

EPC madness: Are EPCRR judgements failing?

0:01 AM, 3rd October 2024, About 3 months ago 17

Text Size

I want to be environmentally conscious (who doesn’t?) and improve the legacy of both property and planet. I also want to be a good landlord (who doesn’t?) and enhance my tenants’ living conditions and cash flow.

But when the EPCRR (Recommendation Report) suggests that I should be spending £4,000 to £14,000 on “internal or external wall insulation” in order to afford my tenant a saving of £72 over 3 years(!), then something is not right in this process.

Put it another way, this renders the tenant a potential saving of 0.514% of their projected 3 year utility expenditure. How on earth can this be considered a justifiable expense to the landlord?

It is beyond bonkers or am I mistaken?

Surely the carbon footprint of £14k’s worth of construction materials, labour and transport through slow-moving London traffic is not sufficient to offset the measly saving on my tenant’s heating!?

This spurious item was Recommendation 2 (of 3 in total), made on one of my more recent EPCRRs.

Surveyed in early 2018, it is safe to say that there will now have been some significant changes in the estimated costings for installation particularly as the construction sector gets it’s inevitable ‘EPC-improvements! bandwagon on the road. Watch it happen!

The fallacy of EPCs and their shambolic guidance for property improvements in the PRS is only further exposed when Recommendation 3 on the same 2018 report [“Installation of Low Energy Light Bulbs”] can be achieved at an indicative cost of £15 yet creating a comparatively high(!) yield of saving for the tenant at a princely sum of £45 (again, across 3 years).

An easy win, which I’ll take – thank you very much – but will only expect it to last as long as the tenants remember to replace low-wattage bulbs for the same.

Don’t even get me started on Recommendation 1!

Suffice to say that, even if all 3 Recommendations for this property were met with bells on, the proposed £17,015 of initial expenditure would only save this particular tenant £366 across 3 years (or a 2.151% saving); and would help the property stagger from a mid-D to a very low-C rating, keeping the property at risk from future EPC hikes – and in no way really improving my tenant’s lifestyle.

Am I simply not seeing some grander vision of eco-credibility & tenant comfort?

I’d be interested to hear Property118’s readers’ thoughts.

PS: my other 4 properties – as well as my commercial property – all received equally spurious Recommendation Reports.

Thanks,

Alex


Share This Article


Comments

Joey Barton

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

7:44 AM, 4th October 2024, About 3 months ago

Tell me about it!
My Recommendation 1 is to install flat roof insulation. It's not particularly expensive but the problem is, I have a leasehold flat and I don't own the roof. I pointed out that the top recommendation on my report is for a part of the building not legally demised to my flat and the answer was, 'Oh, we don't care about that. We're just telling you how the building needs to be improved'. It's not my bloody building! Add to this that the flat is already very warm. As I write, the outside temperature is 6°C. The flat is currently empty with no heating on and the indoor temperature is 17.6°C. In summer, the flat can easily reach over 30°C. If I were to wrap the landlord's flat roof in insulation, I would certainly need permission to install proper split converter AC as my existing mobile AC unit wouldn't stand a chance.
My only other recommendation in the report is to install double-glazing for up to £6,500 (also not easy in a conservation area) which would take me from a D to a D and save the tenant - well, nothing, because the flat needs cooling not heating.

GlanACC

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

7:46 AM, 4th October 2024, About 3 months ago

The basic problem with EPCs is they are trying to solve 2 different problems.1.Net zero and 2.energy bills

With the prices of electricity as high as it is the 2 aims are incompatible. Gas boilers get a better rating than heat pumps and electric boilers.

The government needs to decide on what it wants from EPCs, unfortunately cyclops (Ed 'my eyes are too close together' Milliband) is not capable of sorting this out.

Robert Johnson

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:03 PM, 6th October 2024, About 3 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Geoff at 03/10/2024 - 10:30
You're right the're only recommendations to consider.
The problem arrises when when clueless people get involved and assume this information is accurate.
I do epc surveys myself they take around 1 hour and people pay £38, how useful do you think this information is?

Robert Johnson

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:07 PM, 6th October 2024, About 3 months ago

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 04/10/2024 - 07:46
EPCs are a limited survey, they ain't designed to solve either of these problems, they are rough guide to identify areas that can be improved. If it recommends wall insulation the assumption is the home owner carries out further investigations to determine whether its worthwhile.
Pretending they are anymore than that is why we are in this mess.

Robert Johnson

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:10 PM, 6th October 2024, About 3 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Joey Barton at 04/10/2024 - 07:44
EPCs are a limited survey, they ain't designed to solve either of these problems, they are rough guide to identify areas that can be improved. If it recommends wall insulation the assumption is the home owner carries out further investigations to determine whether its worthwhile.
Pretending they are anymore than that is why we are in this mess.

Alex

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:19 AM, 8th October 2024, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Robert Johnson at 06/10/2024 - 12:03Why, in that case, are they considered suitable to base government policy on?!
The moderators of Property118 slightly amended my title for this article, presumably for reasons of legibilty. Originally, it read "Madness in the EPC: The fallacy & failure of EPCRR judgements."...
It is lunacy to base governmental policy on, as you say, a £38 hour-long survey with a few 'generalised recommdations'. The system was broken before it even began.

Alex

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:34 AM, 8th October 2024, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Robert Johnson at 06/10/2024 - 12:03
Why, in that case, are they becoming the basis for governmental policy?

The moderators of Property118 slightly amended my title for this article, presumably for reasons of legibilty. Originally it read "Madness in the EPC: the fallacy & failure of EPCRR judgements" - the implication not being that EPC judgements are failing in themselves, but that, as you say, a £38 hour-long survey, with a few 'generalised recommendations' should not automatically become a solid mandate - nor indeed a vehicle for a governmental sector purge!

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More