2 months ago | 5 comments
The government has responded to a consultation to reform the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) system to announce that planned reforms will not now take place until late next year.
It says the move follows ‘engagement with industry’.
The changes to the Energy Performance of Buildings regime set out plans to redesign EPCs so certificates show several headline performance metrics.
At present, properties receive one overall band based largely on estimated energy costs.
That rating forms the basis of existing Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards, which require rented homes to reach at least EPC E to be let.
The consultation proposes using several indicators covering:
Officials say the revised format would give landlords and tenants clearer information about how buildings perform and where improvements may be required.
Moving to multiple performance indicators would represent a structural change to the EPC framework used in housing regulation, the government says.
It is planning for rented homes to reach EPC C by the end of the decade.
Alongside the certificate redesign, the government is examining the reliability of EPC assessments.
The document refers to proposals to strengthen the oversight of EPC assessors and review the certification calculation methods being used.
Officials are also considering changes to how EPC data is accessed.
Expanding availability of building performance data could support lenders offering green mortgage products and help inform retrofit programmes.
A proposal to shorten the current 10-year validity period for EPCs was examined as part of the consultation but no decision has yet been confirmed.
Further details on implementation will be published by the government as policy development continues.
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
2 months ago | 5 comments
2 months ago | 2 comments
2 months ago
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 72
9:58 AM, 11th March 2026, About 1 month ago
Well isn’t that great! Total chaos rules again, and while we are threatened with enormous fines and consequences if we put toe wrong, let alone a foot….. this government is pratting us about again. So 2030 for EPC equivalent of C? Really? All those who want to stay as PRS landlords have just lost another year to prepare /improve/sort things out … if we have to?
BTW, if the government offered me £40K to leave,,, I would not hesitate to take the money and run away and leave this crazy place.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
12:13 PM, 11th March 2026, About 1 month ago
and this is exactly why landlords should do nothing until the last minute in regard to anything to do with EPC upgrades now. The gvt don’t know their ar$e from their elbow.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 620
2:05 PM, 11th March 2026, About 1 month ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 11/03/2026 – 12:13
You could not make it up!
Member Since December 2024 - Comments: 62
2:36 PM, 11th March 2026, About 1 month ago
Reply to the comment left by Sally Robinson at 11/03/2026 – 09:58
Agreed. The United Kingdom is the worst place on earth.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 2
3:33 PM, 11th March 2026, About 1 month ago
Reply to the comment left by Robin Wilson at 11/03/2026 – 14:36
The RRA is bad enough, the EPC shambles is the final nail in the coffin. The PRS is finished and I’m out!
Member Since May 2024 - Comments: 117
5:05 PM, 11th March 2026, About 1 month ago
A shame that landlords and other businesses affected by half baked government decisions cannot hand out financial penalties as easily as the state can against honest mistakes..
Member Since August 2023 - Comments: 36
3:36 PM, 14th March 2026, About 1 month ago
So let me get this right.First the government plans reforms.Second they decide to consult. Third they decide to postpone for a year while they engage with industry. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t have made more sense to tackle this in the opposite order?