Landlords warn that energy efficiency plans are ‘dead in the water’

Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 22/01/2023 - 14:47
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

What I do know is that if you poke a sleeping dog you are likely to get bitten, there is rarely a good outcome.

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 21/01/2023 - 16:50Agreed you did not spell it out but it's the inevitable result of what you posted.

So how many forum members have written to their MPs to ask whether EPC software will be programmed to take account of the fact that around half of our electricity is now generated from renewables ?

If not then it's the wrong tool for the job to assess carbon output for their aim of zero net by 2050, because at present it only calculates running costs. Hence why gas heated properties have better EPC values than electrically heated flats because gas heating is cheaper. Even though gas heated properties have higher carbon footprint !

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 24/01/2023 - 13:29
I'm pretty sure EPCs are an EU thing (from before Brexit and we're locked into them) and to change them would be more than just Westminster altering things.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 24/01/2023 - 13:46
Fortunately we've left the EU. So our accountable, removable, elected representatives at Westminster [MPs] can make our laws without interference from Brussels, as they're no longer subordinate to the EU.

And since the EU are pushing for net zero they also need to modify EPC software to be carbon focussed anyway.

PS If you're a landlord with electrically heated properties have you written to your MP?

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 24/01/2023 - 14:02
I don't know the exact legalities of EPCs, but if it is the case that we're *not* locked into some old EU rule, then I suspect we've voluntarily agreed to shadow the EU's EPC rules.

When I was recently in Portugal looking at property, they have the exact same EPCs with the same certificates/layouts as the ones we have here...

The direction of travel has been defined:

The Climate Change Act commits the UK government by law to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels (net zero) by 2050.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/what-is-climate-change/a-legal-duty-to-act/

The PRS supplies 1 in 5 homes and property accounts for 16% of net greenhouse emissions. Since the PRS has the highest proportion of old, leaky properties, it is likely that the PRS accounts for 4% of the UKs carbon emissions.

In 2020, 24% of net greenhouse gas emissions in the UK were estimated to be from the transport sector, 21% from energy supply, 18% from business, 16% from the residential sector and 11% from agriculture (UK Gov, 1 Feb 2022).

Rather than argue that the process is unfair because homeowners are not subjected to the same requirements, it would make more sense to engage and show that the PRS offers energy efficient, low carbon homes - depriving the media and generation woke the opportunity to use the energy efficiency/carbon emissions stick to beat us with.

iHowz continue to push for the publication of the new EPC and MEES requirements, most recently by writing to the APPG on Climate Change asking them to put pressure on the Government to publish the new requirements for the PRS.
https://ihowz.uk/the-anticipated-standards-for-the-minimum-energy-efficiency-standards-mees/

iHowz have also written to Chancellor asking him to include in the upcoming budget funding to support the PRS implement the requirements.

Reply to the comment left by Rod at 24/01/2023 - 15:36
Still no mention in the above post ref the fundamental flaw in using EPC software as it stands with the aim of working towards net zero 🙄

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 24/01/2023 - 16:02
Be careful what you wish for.

I have not looked recently but seem to recall that there were proposals included in the government consultation relating to environmental impact ratings which were seen as separate from and additional to EPC requirements, to be introduced after the proposed new EPC requirements had settled down. You seem to be advocating the introduction of all these requirements at the same time which would cause even more havoc in the PRS than is already anticipated.

Rather than increasing the score for electrical heating it is more likely that they will reduce the score for gas heating systems, thus increasing the push towards air source heat pumps and/or hydrogen without reducing the burden on those with storage heaters and the like.

We all know that achieving the goal of net zero by 2050 is going to cause massive upheaval for everybody, but those who own multiple properties are going to be hit the hardest and I simply cannot understand why some groups who supposedly have the best interests of landlords at heart are pushing for the changes to be accelerated. Enhanced EPC ratings will just be the next step on a long, difficult and extremely expensive journey and many landlords will drop out along the way.

"The PRS supplies 1 in 5 homes and property accounts for 16% of net greenhouse emissions. Since the PRS has the highest proportion of old, leaky properties, it is likely that the PRS accounts for 4% of the UKs carbon emissions".
Where are those statistics/assertions derived from? Don't sound right to me...
Let's assume they are correct: if so, they mean that 84% of carbon emissions are created by non PRS dwelling stock, therefore why impose the obligation for EPC C onto the PRS alone and not the rest of the housing stock, as we will barely make a dent on the numbers?
"Rather than argue that the process is unfair because homeowners are not subjected to the same requirements, it would make more sense to engage and show that the PRS offers energy efficient, low carbon homes - depriving the media and generation woke the opportunity to use the energy efficiency/carbon emissions stick to beat us with".
@Rod: I agree with you on most things, but not this. It is a very noble sentiment, but Govt forcing LLs into doing potentially extensive works for a minimal if any financial return whilst Net Zero will remain a dream because of the lack of application in social or owner-occupied (and other market) sectors, hoping for a bit of good press (unlikely to come our way anyway) is not good business sense, especially while the EPC/MEES requirements are unknown.
Makes more financial sense to leave the PRS altogether, and in my view, Govt should be focussing its efforts elsewhere, such as measures dissuading LLs from selling up, as loss of stock will have a far more negative impact to the nation’s housing than any works we can do to improve our EPCs.