Landlords to meet 2030 EPC deadline with a £15,000 cap – Government

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/02/2025 – 16:06
Great explanation Beaver

Mick Roberts has given a correct speech. He’s said what’s going on.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 07/02/2025 – 10:41
Council tenants ARE worthy, it’s just that Councils don’t care and are treated differently to the PRS because, essentially, Councils are part of the Govt.

Reply to the comment left by G H at 09/02/2025 – 10:29
Yes, multiple rules.

You can’t hate the government enough for what they have done to prs. In this country success is trampled upon.

Reply to the comment left by Shaheen Hamadani at 08/02/2025 – 16:55
My experience of applying for grants is that the company assessing you for the grant sells cavity wall insulation and won’t let you have the grant unless you fit their cavity wall insulation.

Double glazing can be offset against rents. Many other things cannot (or at least not legally, you would have to lie and hope that you didn’t get found out).

I believe that some landlords may have been able to get grants for some things with tenants in situ because the tenant is eligible for the grant. However, sometimes the works are so extensive that it’s not possible with the tenant in situ and as soon as the tenant leaves you are not eligible for the grant.

And of course the price of anything on which you can get a grant is bumped up. So you never get the full value of the grant because the material and labour prices are inflated.

Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 10/02/2025 – 11:06
I would love a grant for secondary glazing but they say not available. We are not allowed double glazing because it’s a listed buildings.

Reply to the comment left by Slooky at 10/02/2025 – 11:11
It can be very complicated can’t it? The UK has one of the most complicated tax codes in the world.

HMRC have accepted that you can write off the cost of replacing single glazing with double glazing in the year in which you do it rather than treating it as capital expenditure. Triple glazing is an improvement:

https://www.calderwindows.co.uk/are-windows-a-capital-improvement-your-expenses-explained#:~:text=The%20short%20answer%20is%20that,as%20a%20deductible%20capital%20expense.

Whenever I’ve looked at getting grants in the past the assessor has been a company that makes its money by selling cavity wall insulation and the answer has been “…no grant unless you install our CWI”. As CWI would damage my properties that’s been a no from me….I’m staying at Band D for now thank you….I’ll issue section 8 (renovations) when I need to.

If on the other hand I was able to find a company that was able to say to me “…yes you can have a grant without installing CWI and we will issue you an EPC certificate that moves you from EPC band D to band C if you fit our triple-glazing and a porch at front because you’ve shown us that’s where you are actually losing the heat” then I’d be happy to consider doing it even with tenants in situ if the tenants actually wanted to pay the extra rent. But even if we ignore the obvious question about corruption that raises a few questions doesn’t it?

Most properties are Band D and already have double glazing. Installing triple-glazing is not a like for like replacement. Will HMRC now still consider this a significant improvement and expect you to capitalise and finance it? Or will they now let you write it off against rents? They don’t permit you to do this today: IMPROVEMENTS have to be capitalised. If you have to lie to write off the cost today, what does that tell you about they system?

And however you do it unless you are awash with cash you are probably going to have to raise finance. Under the present tax regime if you are a small portfolio landlord and the sum total of all your gross income exceeds £50K per annum then you cannot offset your finance costs. (If your income is below £50K per annum you get a tax credit for the finance costs).

If the tenant wants you to invest and is prepared to pay the extra rent and you go ahead and raise the finance and do the work with the tenant in situ then the increase in rent that you have to charge can push you over the £50K income limit even if you are not already over it. If you go over the £50K limit then in order not to be disadvantaged you need to charge the tenant not only the extra rent to service the extra finance costs, but also the extra rent to cover the extra tax charge that you will face (because you are not incorporated).

So tenants will have to pay more because of the tax system….in effect you are making tenants a tax-collector recovering 40% tax. And the tax system disproportionately punishes small portfolio landlords and their tenants because incorporated businesses can offset their costs.

If on the other hand the government changes the system so that you can offset your finance costs of IMPROVEMENTS designed to improve your EPC and permits you to offset the cost of finance for a property at EPC band C or above against your rents then this would make a lot of things more possible and would also mean that you would not necessarily have to pass the penalties on to your tenants.

If the government stopped the nonsense of not being able to rent out a band D, E or F property (i.e. it got rid of the stick) and allowed you to offset the costs of energy efficiency improvements against your rents if you are a landlord, your income if you are an owner occupier, or possibly your IHT bill if you are retired then a lot of things would be much more possible. There would be some carrots….not just sticks wielded by politicians who are either economically illiterate or just plain dishonest.

These carrots would benefit not just landlords, but long-term tenants. And they would ensure that choice in the market for tenants is not unnecessarily restricted by driving out the choice and competition provided by small portfolio landlords who historically tended to hold rents down a bit to encourage long term tenancies.

This government doesn’t appear to understand markets. And most people don’t understand the tax system because it is horribly complicated.

I have looked at my EPC’s for my properties,
they are mostly D but another 9 points and they a C, all of the reports state that cavity wall insulation would enhance the score, but these houses are Victorian terraced properties made with large stones not brick, will insulation cause damp and condensation once installed?

Reply to the comment left by graham mcauley at 10/02/2025 – 13:25
If you look online via e.g. google then you will find lots of sites telling you that cavity wall insulation doesn’t cause damp. These are mostly sites run by companies selling cavity wall insulation. They tell you this because they want to sell you CWI.

But if you keep looking then you will also find sites like this:

https://www.lawble.co.uk/cavity-wall-insulation-claim/#:~:text=If%20unsuitable%20or%20defective%20cavity%20wall%20insulation%20has,any%20associated%20damage%20to%20your%20property%20or%20health.

Sites like this one from lawyers looking to help people sue for CWI being incorrectly installed or installed where it should not have been installed exist because a lot of CWI has been installed where it shouldn’t have been. When this happens it is very expensive to sort it out.

The cavity exists to stop moisture being transmitted from the exterior wall to the interior wall. In many older properties CWI should not be installed. The alternative to CWI is to fit internal insulation….dry-lining, Celltex, that kind of thing. Even then that’s not always suitable for properties with lime mortar and lime plasterwork. These properties need to breathe.