Energy Performance Certificates

N79

alanmilstein wrote: »

6. You can get an EPC off the internet for £40, or buy one from a company like mine for £75. The only difference is that with a company like mine you get a more personal service, better follow up and reliability, and a known local firm. The EPC itself is exactly the same.

Could I ask you:

1) What follow up I could possibly need?
2) Why on earth I would care whether or not the EPC is reliable (other than that it ticks the legally issued box)?
3) Why a local firm would be better.

At present, as far as I am concerned, cheapest is best all the way when meeting a pointless box tick obligation that no one every looks at.

alanmilstein

N79 wrote: »

Could I ask you:

1) What follow up I could possibly need?
2) Why on earth I would care whether or not the EPC is reliable (other than that it ticks the legally issued box)?
3) Why a local firm would be better.

At present, as far as I am concerned, cheapest is best all the way when meeting a pointless box tick obligation that no one every looks at.

I find that some of my clients prefer a more personal service and need a degree of hand-holding, and are therefore happy to pay a bit more.
Others, perhaps like yourself, choose the cheapest option and accept that there will be little back-up or support.
However it is not unusual for clients to come back 1 or 2 years later to ask for a copy of their EPC which they've lost. Longer established companies like mine are more likely to still be in existence and can solve such issues. Many of the cheap internet providers have gone to the wall in recent times, probably because they don't make sufficient profit to maintain a business long term.
You pays your money and you makes your choice, but at least with a local established firm it is more likely that there will be someone to go back to in the future if you have questions.

tbs624

alanmilstein wrote: »

As some one who has done many EPC's I can perhaps, clarify some points here.
1. ALL EPC's are valid for 10 years. There is absolutely no difference between an EPC for a property for sale and one for rent.

This is following on from this summer's suspension of HIPs

alanmilstein wrote: »

4. The rules about when you classify an upper floor as a "room in the roof" are specified in the Governments rules and are not at the behest of the assessor to determine. If the room fits the rule for a room-in-the-roof then that's what it's called.

The fact that there are variations in the construction of properties, for which there is no provision in the software, just adds to the lack of value of these certificates.

alanmilstein wrote: »

5. ALL residential properties are assessed under the same set of rules i.e. the EPC should be seen as a comparative tool in that you can compare one property with another.

As I said before:

tbs624 wrote: »

......It's unlikely that a buyer or T will have the choice of two properties, both of which are identical, bar the content of their shiny EPCs.

The usual stuff that is the deal breaker is "how far to work/kids' schools, proximity of shops/public transport and can we fit that massive wardrobe in the master bedroom"

alanmilstein wrote: »

Various schemes operate for accreditation of assessors but they shoudl all be working to the same guidance.
6. You can get an EPC off the internet for £40, or buy one from a company like mine for £75. The only difference is that with a company like mine you get a more personal service, better follow up and reliability, and a known local firm. The EPC itself is exactly the same.

I don't want to pay nearly double the cost on th e off-chance that I might "need" you to hold my hand at some point in the future. Bit like those expensive "breakdown insurance/guarantee" policies that cost almost as much as the equipment that you're buying...but likely to be much less use.

alanmilstein wrote: »

I find that some of my clients prefer a more personal service and need a degree of hand-holding, and are therefore happy to pay a bit more.

Hand holding over an EPC? I expect they qualify for considerable help from the authorities in other areas of their lives in that case.

alanmilstein wrote: »

However it is not unusual for clients to come back 1 or 2 years later to ask for a copy of their EPC which they've lost. Longer established companies like mine are more likely to still be in existence and can solve such issues. Many of the cheap internet providers have gone to the wall in recent times, probably because they don't make sufficient profit to maintain a business long term.

As the EPCs are all logged with a central database it shouldn't really matter whether your firm has gone to the wall

alanmilstein wrote: »

You pays your money and you makes your choice, but at least with a local established firm it is more likely that there will be someone to go back to in the future if you have questions.

Indeed you do - the choice is "do I risk a TSO action over not providing this piece of useless paper & land myself with a 200 quid penalty payment?" or do I do my MSE bit and get what I need at the lowest possible cost?

My £45 job was with a "local and established" guy, but it's unlikely I'll have any future questions to ask him. He said "thanks for the business", I said "thanks for the EPC, here's your 45 quid". Pretty EPC in folder, job done.

As I said,

tbs624 wrote: »

It's a nonsense.The majority of those who defend them are those who have forked out several grand to retrain as a DEA:D

Pennylane

First time I saw an EPC was when we bought a very small house, which we now rent out. It seems a pretty useless bit of paper to me and I can't believe anybody got paid for producing it.

It is fully double glazed (doors and windows) and the roof has a fair bit of insulation in it. It is very compact and sheltered.

There were various questions and the Assessor had said it was "assumed" there was cavity wall insulation due to its age. Well I've spoken to the original builders and it doesn't have cavity wall insulation but it was built using thermal blocks. Also some of the neighbours confirm this.

Then it suggests ways in which the performance could be improved and it suggests using energy saving light bulbs.:rotfl:

Bananamana

alanmilstein wrote: »

I find that some of my clients prefer a more personal service and need a degree of hand-holding, and are therefore happy to pay a bit more.
Others, perhaps like yourself, choose the cheapest option and accept that there will be little back-up or support.
However it is not unusual for clients to come back 1 or 2 years later to ask for a copy of their EPC which they've lost. Longer established companies like mine are more likely to still be in existence and can solve such issues. Many of the cheap internet providers have gone to the wall in recent times, probably because they don't make sufficient profit to maintain a business long term.
You pays your money and you makes your choice, but at least with a local established firm it is more likely that there will be someone to go back to in the future if you have questions.

great! pay more for not being able to hit the "print" button

pass....

ps2010

ALL surveyors, including structural engineers etc, use the age of a property to make some assumptions about the property, without actually knocking through walls etc, this is the standard approach to making decisions about a building that you have little or no information about.

The difference in EPC prices that you lot are getting so hot under the collar about equates to 0.006% of the AVERAGE house price, let alone the real price of your individual properties. At such an important time, both financially and otherwise, does it make sense to spend so much energy on something that cost relatively next to nothing!

The recast of the EPBD states that by June 2011, Member States must have decided upon a strategy to make the EPBD more effective, which includes financial measures. In other words, if my early next year, the EPC and other associated measures have not started to reduce CO2 levels, then the government will use taxes (of one sort or another) to make the EPBD more effective.

This is simply a 'bedding in' period for EPCs, in 2 years time, the rating will be linked to one or more taxes, then landlords who went for the cheapest option will be left wondering whether the saving of £10-£15 was worth the increase in taxes (and by implication, the increase in rent to make the building profitable). Another great financial decision (see above).

And this is a Global issue, many countries outside of Europe are implementing similar instruments.

And, If you lot think this is bad, then wait to see what is in the pipeline (no pun intended) over water useage!

The world has changed, people.

tbs624

ps2010 wrote: »

This is simply a 'bedding in' period for EPCs, in 2 years time, the rating will be linked to one or more taxes, then landlords who went for the cheapest option will be left wondering whether the saving of £10-£15 was worth the increase in taxes (and by implication, the increase in rent to make the building profitable). Another great financial decision (see above).

Another example of muddled thinking - please explain why a LL who has chosen to get an EPC at a better price necessarily faces "increased taxes", over and above those LL swho paid twice as much for their certs? Are you suggesting, for instance, that a cheaper EPC results in a lower rating for your property?

Please also declare your own interest in EPCs - have you forked out to retrain as a DEA yourself?

tbs624

Pennylane wrote: »

First time I saw an EPC was when we bought a very small house, which we now rent out. It seems a pretty useless bit of paper to me and I can't believe anybody got paid for producing it.

Many agree with you.

Pennylane wrote: »

Then it suggests ways in which the performance could be improved and it suggests using energy saving light bulbs.:rotfl:

OOh, you slipped up there Pennylane. You trot off before your DEA arrives and buy your energy saving bulbs to pop in to the sockets ready for the inspection.

This ones a real idiocy because the LL cannot insist that the T subsequently only uses energy saving bulbs in the property.

ps2010

tbs624
my thinking is anything but muddled. As noted previously, if you want to spend your energy lambasting a system that is worth, at maximum, 0.06% of your sale price, then go ahead.

And to answer your questions:

Yes, I am saying exactly that. It is a job like any other, if you pay someone a decent fee, they are more likely to spend more time on the job than if you pay them peanuts. If the property in question could be in one of two rating bands, then a simple mistake could see that property drop to the lower band – easily. Therefore when these bands are linked to taxes, the LL will be paying extra. But, he'll never know unless he pays to get another survey properly done. I thought readers of moneysavingexpert would be more longterm financially savvy than what I've read so far.

With regards to lighting, tungsten lamps are actually heaters not a light source, as approx 92% of the energy used is given off as heat rather than wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Is it not idiotic to use a heater as a light source, when there are so many more efficient light forms available?

Yes, it is rather silly that an item that is easily removed is incorporated within the EPC report, but if energy saving lighting were left off the report then the Daily Mail et al, would be criticising the technical reach of the report for leaving such an obvious thing out. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

No system is bullet proof, there are loop holes through everything (even taxes :-)).

Thirdly, I am an energy consultant who took the DEA training many years ago as the flexible hours suited my other study's time patterns. I very rarely do them these days.

N79

ps2010 wrote: »

t
Yes, I am saying exactly that. It is a job like any other, if you pay someone a decent fee, they are more likely to spend more time on the job than if you pay them peanuts. If the property in question could be in one of two rating bands, then a simple mistake could see that property drop to the lower band – easily. Therefore when these bands are linked to taxes, the LL will be paying extra. But, he'll never know unless he pays to get another survey properly done. I thought readers of moneysavingexpert would be more longterm financially savvy than what I've read so far.

If I think an EPC is wrong (or if in the future a T's tax bill depends on the EPC so they challenge the rating) then I will get another opinion. If it confirms that the original EPC was wrong then I will sue the EPC provider for all my costs, including the second opinion, any costs in rectifying the mistakes and my legal fees. You get the same liability coverage whether you pay GBP25 or GBP100 as all EPC providers have the same duty of care. So I still don't see the advantage of paying over the odds for the piece of paper.