Homeowners struggle to fund EPC upgrades despite growing buyer demand

The problem with current epc ratings system is they do NOT reflect the actual level across different house types.
I had three houses rated within 2 weeks with the same person/ company.
Two semi and one detached of different sizes and types, one a bungalow, one a two storey semi and a detached dormer house.
The bungalow got rated D, needs underfloor insulation, solar panels etc. The semi got a C, needs underfloor insulation, solar panels etc..The detached also got a C, and barely, it needs a windmill !
The detached has solar pv, solar thermal, underfloor heating, fully insulated, individual room heating controls, the lot basically.
The reason for this “discrepancy ” was the sizes of the houses..the detached was too big !!!
So they want everyone in rabbit hutches with small windows in order to get A ratings….oh, that’s what they build now isn’t it !!

The epc on one of my properties was c 13 years ago …..same tenant so don’t need to update it ….. but I guess when the landlord database comes in I will have to update it ….. and I guess it’ll be downgraded. I make £9000 a year before tax from that property ….. so must I spend over a year’s income to upgrade it? It’s a nonsense. I shall sell

I have never yet had someone question the EPC on any residential home I’ve sold. Equally, I’ve never asked about houses I’ve wanted to buy. If it’s not for rental, and it’s clearly not got wind rattling through the windows, it really doesn’t matter if it’s the right house. If work’s needed; new windows, insulation, electrics, boiler… it gets factored into the price offered post-survey.

Reply to the comment left by Jan Hall at 23/09/2026 – 10:24
The fact that the EPC is 13 years old doesn’t necessarily mean the property would be downgraded when it is reassessed. There have certainly been changes to the methodology over that period, but those changes don’t automatically mean that an unchanged property receives a lower rating.

If the property were reassessed today, the current methodology would be applied to the property’s actual characteristics and the evidence available. If it produced a significantly different rating from the old EPC, I’d be interested in looking at the detailed assessment data to establish why, rather than simply assuming that the methodology change was responsible. It is also worth remembering that a difference between two EPCs isn’t necessarily caused by a change in methodology — the earlier EPC may not have been entirely accurate in the first place.

I’d also be very wary of assuming that you need to spend a year’s rental income on improvements until you’ve established what the property actually requires. A decent assessor should be able to model potential improvements and show what effect they are likely to have before you spend the money.

Also, if you’re referring to the proposed £10,000 MEES cost cap, it doesn’t mean that you have to spend £10,000, or even that you have to spend anything approaching that amount. If the required standard can be achieved for considerably less, then that’s all you would need to spend. It may therefore be worth finding out what the property actually needs before assuming you’re facing a £9,000 or £10,000 bill.

Assuming you’re in England or Wales, there’s also a potentially useful point to consider. If the property were reassessed and achieved an EER C under the current EPC system, an EPC lodged before 1 October 2029 is proposed to be recognised as compliant with the tighter PRS MEES standard until that EPC expires. As EPCs are currently valid for 10 years, an EPC obtained sufficiently close to that date could potentially give you several years of breathing space before the new requirements have to be met.

Reply to the comment left by Imout Ofhere at 23/09/2026 – 07:30
The point about the size of the detached house is interesting, but I don’t think it’s quite as simple as the larger property being “penalised” for being bigger.
The EPC methodology models the energy use of the dwelling in relation to its floor area, so the rating is effectively normalised for floor area. A larger house doesn’t automatically get a worse rating simply because it has more square metres. There are obviously other factors in the calculation, including the geometry of the dwelling, but floor area itself isn’t simply a penalty.
I’d actually be more interested in comparing the heating systems and the construction of the walls in the three properties. Those can have a significant effect on the calculated performance, and two properties that look broadly similar externally can produce quite different EPC ratings depending on the heating system and the way their construction is recorded.
The “windmill” recommendation is also interesting. If by windmill you mean a small wind turbine, that recommendation is associated with properties recorded as being in a rural terrain category. So its appearance on the EPC doesn’t necessarily mean the assessor thought the detached house needed a wind turbine because it was particularly energy inefficient.
I’d therefore be cautious about concluding from those three ratings that the methodology is trying to encourage people to live in “rabbit hutches”. There are some fairly specific reasons why the methodology can produce results which aren’t immediately intuitive from looking at the properties themselves.

Reply to the comment left by Imout Ofhere at 23/09/2026 – 07:30
The point about the size of the detached house is interesting, but I don’t think it’s quite as simple as the larger property being “penalised” for being bigger.
The EPC methodology models the energy use of the dwelling in relation to its floor area, so the rating is effectively normalised for floor area. A larger house doesn’t automatically get a worse rating simply because it has more square metres. There are obviously other factors in the calculation, including the geometry of the dwelling, but floor area itself isn’t simply a penalty.
I’d actually be more interested in comparing the heating systems and the construction of the walls in the three properties. Those can have a significant effect on the calculated performance, and two properties that look broadly similar externally can produce quite different EPC ratings depending on the heating system and the way their construction is recorded.
The “windmill” recommendation is also interesting. If by windmill you mean a small wind turbine, that recommendation is associated with properties recorded as being in a rural terrain category. So its appearance on the EPC doesn’t necessarily mean the assessor thought the detached house needed a wind turbine because it was particularly energy inefficient.
I’d therefore be cautious about concluding from those three ratings that the methodology is trying to encourage people to live in “rabbit hutches”. There are some fairly specific reasons why the methodology can produce results which aren’t immediately intuitive from looking at the properties themselves.