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

Reply to the comment left by Geoff at 10/02/2025 – 11:18
The point I am making is reasonable cost insulation and cheap green surplus energy is a much better option?

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 10/02/2025 – 10:13

It’s a good question and one that should be forwarded to Matt Pennycook, as the Leasehold & Freehold Reform Act is being fine-tuned at this moment. It’s a good example of why leasehold needs reform – to prevent absent freeholders obstructing improvements that would benefit everyone else!

In order to let the property a specific rating is required. In future it will be 69 points to achieve a C standard. 68 points will not do. In my experience the rating on a property can go down by 20 points even after improvements are made. The process is not fit for purpose and it is not in any way transparent. There is no statement of the facts the assessor records and puts into the version of the software. There is no mapping of the inputs to points achieved. The software the generates the number is not available to allow validation of the result by anyone or to explore the effects of changes. Since the operation of this software requires no qualifications or experience other than a three day internet course, it cannot be difficult!
Until every assessor can review the same property and come up with exactly the same input data and that data can be put into any version of the software to produce the exactly the same number then it is clearly not fit for purpose.
It will not be useful to landlords until they can see what is recorded about their property and are able to see what actions could allow them to just achieve the required rating by using the software.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 10/02/2025 – 11:06
Factually correct but misses my point, any and all alterations outside the lease demised property, such as insulation or window changes are likely to be subject to the freeholder or RTM company to agree, and all leaseholders obliged to contribute pro rata and indeed agree, my point was that letting owners could be precluded from upgrading by virtue of these complexities. As to owner occupiers, are you aware of the EU regulations on this point, compulsory EPC levels at pain of fine and/or council enforced work with a charge on the property, this is all part of the wealth stripping policies of the WEF.

Reply to the comment left by Geoff at 10/02/2025 – 11:18
We have Grade 2 listed in our portfolio. There is no chance in ‘ redeveloping ‘ the site. We don’t own the whole building. Ignorant Milliband refuses to allow a change so we can fit uPVC quality sash double glazing. I have asked him.

We are all doomed anyway!.

Reply to the comment left by Geoff at 10/02/2025 – 11:18Biased, why?
Perfectly reasonable to look at the return on investment.
In this case the return goes to the renter but the capital has to be repaid somehow so up goes the rent and in all probability by more than the savings.
What you also ignored is that not all of the investment will be reflected in an increase in the value of the property.

Leaving the market involves paying CGT, which may be equivalent to the cost of insulation.

Also if the ‘millions’ of houses below ‘C’ are returned to the market, they will increase supply for would-be buyers and help to reduce demand for rental properties.

“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.”
They are thickos if they think a business is going to go down this road.

Reply to the comment left by Rennie at 16/02/2025 – 23:44
The stupid thing is, some will ?