Mis-sold an 'energy efficient' property by a builder.

Pipeandslippers20

BadgerFace wrote: »

I'd have thought you have no chance. It's akin to the builder stating the property is 'a bargain'. A bargain in relation to what...and what was a bargain yesterday may not be today. Completely subjective.

It's probably for this kind of reason they brought this in to stop builders duping people.
You have to admit that it's at least morally wrong.

And if I was to sell this property and advertise it as being 'energy efficient' then that would be..?

Doozergirl

C is energy efficient! Also, these EPCs are tick box forms based on numerous assumptions. In the project we've just finished I was telling the assessor that we've installed windows with a super uValue of 1.2 which exceeds building regulations by quite a way and it actually means that when I touch the inside pane of glass, it's room temperature, which is fabulous. He said it didn't matter?!

It's unusual for a house to get above a C. To get an A you'd have to be completely "carbon neutral" if not carbon positive really; producing your own heating, hot water etc. and it would be absolutely obvious in the building techniques, the appearance of the place and the methods you use to obtain heating and hot water. I don't think any domestic developer is building anything close to that, it's not financially viable - the payback comes over a number of years, it isn't immediate so you'll never see the cost of energy saving measures reflected in house prices until the government demands that all houses are A rated. At the moment, the only A rated houses are so few and far between that they are the ones you'll see them on Grand Designs.

Best we've managed is 2 points off a B. And when we asked if there was anything we could do to push it up to a B, he said 'a wind turbine'.

Energy is expensive, but I can promise you, you're not paying nearly as much as you would be if you had a lesser rating.

I don't think think there can be a misrepresentation of 'energy efficient' -the place was built in 2007 and it's a new build. All the building materials will be energy efficient and whatever heating system it uses, simply to meet building regulations - and I suspect that the developer probably went 'as far' as putting in appliances with a decent energy efficiency rating.

Pipeandslippers20

Doozergirl wrote: »

C is energy efficient! Also, these EPCs are tick box forms based on numerous assumptions. In the project we've just finished I was telling the assessor that we've installed windows with a super uValue of 1.2 which exceeds building regulations by quite a way and it actually means that when I touch the inside pane of glass, it's room temperature, which is fabulous. He said it didn't matter?!

It's unusual for a house to get above a C. To get an A you'd have to be completely "carbon neutral" if not carbon positive really; producing your own heating, hot water etc. and it would be absolutely obvious in the building techniques, the appearance of the place and the methods you use to obtain heating and hot water. I don't think any domestic developer is building anything close to that, it's not financially viable - the payback comes over a number of years, it isn't immediate so you'll never see the cost of energy saving measures reflected in house prices until the government demands that all houses are A rated. At the moment, the only A rated houses are so few and far between that they are the ones you'll see them on Grand Designs.

Best we've managed is 2 points off a B. And when we asked if there was anything we could do to push it up to a B, he said 'a wind turbine'.

Energy is expensive, but I can promise you, you're not paying nearly as much as you would be if you had a lesser rating.

I don't think think there can be a misrepresentation of 'energy efficient' -the place was built in 2007 and it's a new build. All the building materials will be energy efficient and whatever heating system it uses, simply to meet building regulations - and I suspect that the developer probably went 'as far' as putting in appliances with a decent energy efficiency rating.

That sounds like some pretty amazing windows you have in. If to get into the green categories you need to be practically carbon neutral then that's fair enough. The assessor did tell me though that the building was not efficient, and given it was his job assumed him to be correct.
You say C would be efficient, but what would you say about D?

The frustrations with the build is that the heating when on runs at 6500 Watts - that's a lot of power for a 2 bed apartment. The water is heated through the night for 5 hours, but through experimentation Ive discovered it will get very hot from being cold in 2 hours, so each day 9kWHs are wasted (unless you adjust the timer and turn it off when you get up then put it back on again when I get home!).
I bought in oil heaters and dont use the 'central heating' and together with the above trick this reduced my electric bill by about £40 a month!

ILW

What would you hope to achieve through a miss sell claim?

Doozergirl

davidandrewlawrence wrote: »

.
You say C would be efficient, but what would you say about D?

It's average, a little above.

But a flat should be more energy efficient than a house because you have neighbours making heat from at least one side - a mid floor flat should be pretty energy efficient without any special measures. And a new build should really be at least a C??

Seriously though, we haven't done anything much different in the last three houses yet they all have different ratings. All C but one nearer the top than others. I don't see how 20 minutes wandering around ticking a form with "assumed" has any value at all when measuring energy efficiency when H has spent hours wedging insulation between all the internal walls and the guy can't even see it to measure. It's all bleeping bleep in my opinion! It might be different if it came as a certificate to accompany building regulations approval - which involves proper inspection.

I have to be there to tell assessors what we've done or the boxes get 'assumed' ticked and it will get a lower rating just because it looks like an old house. I bet any money, the next time one of our houses get sold on, they'll be getting Ds and Es. If you don't know how your property has been built, he won't bother measuring it as if it's had any special treatment.

But I cannot see how you're going to go after someone for a phrase that can't really be measured?

BadgerFace_2

davidandrewlawrence wrote: »

It's probably for this kind of reason they brought this in to stop builders duping people.
You have to admit that it's at least morally wrong.

And if I was to sell this property and advertise it as being 'energy efficient' then that would be..?

You could advertise the property as being energy efficient and that would be allowed as the property is no doubt 'energy efficient' in as far as it has a rating for efficiency. It's not wrong, you just chose to interpret that as meaning LOW BILLS.

The flat may well be efficient compared to other flats which have storage heaters, rather than your electric central heating...but not as efficient as, say, a gas central heated maisonette.

As far as the actual efficiency vs. the perceived efficiency.The EPC 'inspector' would have no idea how efficient your particular flat was, merely a rough estimate. In fact, the builder would have far more knowledge of this, having chosen the systems fitted to your flat.

toby3000

Slightly off-topic, but I was under the impression that the A-G rating was judged by it's class? So a B-rated house might still reuqire more energy than a C-rated flat etc?

However, it being sold as 'energy-efficient' is probably vague enough that you couldn't have a claim, I would imagine. Did the info list any special measures they'd done to make it more efficient than standard?

Incyder

I can see why you are gutted David. I sold my house last year and my epc gave me a D rating at 66 (better than yours)

It was a 1983 built, wimpey 2-bed, semi, house. Timber frame, wall ties, single skin.
Still with the original wooden windows with the old narrow gap sealed units.
Some of them now leaking air.

The gas boiler was a servowarm elite 30 ( long extinct now, poor quality, made out of Honeywell parts) It was the original 1983 boiler.

A little layer of lagging in the loft and enery bulbs in all light sockets.

I realise yours is a flat and mine was a house.

Doozergirl

Incyder wrote: »

I can see why you are gutted David. I sold my house last year and my epc gave me a D rating at 66 (better than yours)

It was a 1983 built, wimpey 2-bed, semi, house. Timber frame, wall ties, single skin.
Still with the original wooden windows with the old narrow gap sealed units.
Some of them now leaking air.

The gas boiler was a servowarm elite 30 ( long extinct now, poor quality, made out of Honeywell parts) It was the original 1983 boiler.

A little layer of lagging in the loft and enery bulbs in all light sockets.

I realise yours is a flat and mine was a house.

No way should that have been a D! Just proves my point that these people don't know what they're doing.

I swear they just look for energy saving bulbs and rate it on that alone. Energy saving bulbs do seem to have a disproportionate weighting.

hcb42

I think so too, the whole thing is a farce, we were marked down as no DG as one leaded stain glass window wasnt in the whole house, hubby did point out that the excellent rating on the low energy lightbulbs was ridiculous as he could take them out next day. we were rated E (which was fair enough - old draughty house) and EPC chart showed no further improvement could be made. Well apart from aforementioned window and the fact that the roof needs insulating once some loft work is completed!