Green Deal MSE Guide Discussion

NaughtySpot

Gloucester_Lad wrote: »

If you borrow you can do better than 7%, why not a mortgage extension (2% to 4%) or even a personal bank loan (about 5%) and of course the loan will be much smaller if you use a local trades person.

Thanks for your reply G'Lad but neither of these avenues are open to us and won't be for a good few years, which sadly renders the rest of your well written post moot.

What I am trying (obviously quite badly) to say is that for some (a lot?) of people this could be really helpful to their pocket and quality of life.

As for the local tradesman, I do tend to think if they can't be arsed to even return my calls then I'll take my business elsewhere and don't chase them up. Maybe this is cutting my nose off to spite my face but if something goes wrong what are the chances of them coming back? As you so rightly said it's my choice though.

Richie-from-the-Boro

NaughtySpot wrote: »

Thanks for your reply G'Lad but neither of these avenues are open to us and won't be for a good few years, which sadly renders the rest of your well written post moot.

What I am trying (obviously quite badly) to say is that for some (a lot?) of people this could be really helpful to their pocket and quality of life.

As for the local tradesman, I do tend to think if they can't be arsed to even return my calls then I'll take my business elsewhere and don't chase them up. Maybe this is cutting my nose off to spite my face but if something goes wrong what are the chances of them coming back? As you so rightly said it's my choice though.

Replacing your 20+ years old and terribly inefficient boiler is the one GD item that :

- stares you in the eye each morning
- forms a big slice of the loan and a big slice of the interest
- that boiler will be about £20-30% more than you could other wise get it installed
- terms of warranties of your replacement boiler might be dramatically shorter than the loan term
- making monthly repayments plus interest for an already broken out of warranty boiler could face many GD [ers]
- do the warranties on each element of the GD last as long as the loan repayment period ?

Check the T&C's, you don't want the broken boiler to stare you in the eye each morning, without the money to replace it, while still paying for it for another 7 years after it broke and after the warranty ended.

For anyone considering the purchase of a dwelling with a GD loan on it. Check the T&C's, you don't want the broken boiler to stare you in the eye each morning, without the money to replace it, while still paying for it for another 7 years after it broke and after the warranty ended. You will be paying twice.

Gloucester_Lad

Ardent_Monk wrote: »

Hi,
I've just qualified as a Green Deal Advisor, I work for a consultancy that puts ethics at the heart of what we do (this isn't an advert just trying to give background!) and so did the advisor course to get a better understanding of the issues on both consumer and provider sides.
From my point of view it is going to be a very interesting six months, there are some serious issues regarding independence of advisors, e.g. When employed by a green deal provider that is also a green deal installer, and it concerns me that the opportunities for shortcuts and back handers by advisors are fairly significant. However that said I think it is a decent scheme for those who would otherwise not be able to afford the measures and hopefully will help address the co2 emissions from the existing housing stock. Fingers are crossed... :cool:

Yep, I'd agree an interesting six months to come, not sure if it should be fingers crossed though or rather lets get rid of this not very good "Green Deal" in favor of a scheme fit for purpose.

I applaud your ethical approach and I share your concerns regarding the independence of Green Deal Advisors, and although some "tied" GDA's will face temptation to mis-sell and collect commission from installers overall most GDA's won't. I don't see the GDA as the potential villain some critics do.
I'm a DEA and was tempted to become a GDA but from my own detailed study of the scheme I reached the conclusion it's not going to work.

Where we'll differ is where you say "it is a decent scheme for those who would otherwise not be able to afford the measures". I'd say all measures even for people not too well off are quite possible outside the Green Deal. That is for everyone above the level where ECO could help them. I don't have an issue with ECO.

What makes the Green Deal which you describe as "a decent scheme" fall down is that even the most ethical GDA cannot escape the facts:

Inflated GD installer prices (Just like the boiler from British Gas costing 40% more than local plumbers prices, add the big boy "Green Deal club" and that situation probably gets worse)

7% plus interest (while mortgage rates and even personal bank loans are much lower)

The Golden Rule which carries no guarantee at all that upgrades will cost less in repayments than energy bill savings made (in fact for some measures there is no way the golden rule will have any chance no matter how you figure it). So this person who you say might not be able to afford upgrades without the Green Deal may well be stumping up more per month than they are now and and only seeing any savings after several years of repayments if at all, so presumable they will have trouble affording that too?

Now I'm all for improving housing stock energy efficiency and even in favor of reducing national Co2 output, but there are already more affordable ways to get there, if only by home owners simply going their own way. Cheaper finance, cheaper but just as good installers not part of the Green Deal club.

The Green Deal I'd like to see would not include inflated installation costs, it would be financed by interest free loans and some of the other silly elements would be removed, like the loan on the property, tenants paying to upgrade their landlords property etc. etc. Perhaps even lower council tax a little for more efficient homes as an added incentive.

Of course that would mean some Government money going into this scheme. Clearly something they don't want to do. They prefer a market lead approach which unfortunately attracts profit seeking installers and financiers and thus is bound to increase the cost to the poor punter, and make success of the Green Deal far less likely.

Government don't want to contribute but with Government contribution is the only way I think it might work.

Coulsdon_Town

An assessment by a Green Deal Advisor comprises a new EPC AND an 'Occupancy Assessment'. I don't know all the details as i'm not a GDA, but i believe this is meant to make the process accurate for the occupants of the property. It does beg the question though - what happens if the property changes hands to a household with very different energy use?

Gloucester_Lad wrote: »

Well, I'd completely agree with you about the merits of getting your new boiler from a local plumber rather than from one of the big boys who will undoubtedly charge much more, typically 40% more.

However your criticism of the EPC is a bit harsh. The "wild inaccuracies" that make you smile I would guess are related to projected energy usage and potential savings following recommended upgrades?
Well you really should remember what was the original purpose of an EPC before it was hijacked and incorporated into the Green Deal system.
The EPC was originally introduced simply to give potential house buyers and tenants the heads up on the kind of running costs they could expect if they actually buy or rent the home in question. By simply checking out the EPC for each property a realistic efficiency comparisons could be made. That's all it was originally for.

The EPC energy usage figures are based on a standard occupancy model for the size of property in question. Now of course no two households use energy in the same way and many factors can affect energy usage. How many occupants, whether they are at work all day, whether they are retired and like the place a bit warmer etc.etc.
Those standard occupancy projected figure will therefore of course most of the time be wildly inaccurate because few people will conveniently fit the standard occupancy model but it does make comparisons between different properties more of a meaningful possibility.
Unless the standard occupancy model is used how, Mr. energy expert plumber, sorry heating engineer, is any comparison between different property energy inefficiencies remotely possible?

Where it's all gone horribly wrong is in using potential savings for the EPC based on the standard occupancy model as the basis of the Green Deal "Golden Rule". Given that no two households use energy the same way how can it be correct? How can those figures, coupled to the Golden Rule, possibly be trusted to ensure savings outweigh cost of upgrade? Simple answer is of course they cannot.
The EPC was never intended to do this, until the Green Deal hijacked it.

This example along with many other what will prove unpopular eliments of the "Green Deal" is what makes it such a poorly thought out, unnecessarily complex, and comparatively expensive pigs ear of a scheme. And I agree, stay clear of the Green Deal.

But Mr. Energy Expert Heating Engineer your dig at the "guestimated and farcicle" EPC is I'd say unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with the EPC system for sales and letting, which is what it's really intended for. It is only it's extended use within the Green Deal that is highly questionable.

Coulsdon_Town

If you want to proceed via Green Deal you can only use tradesmen certified as 'Green Deal Installers'. For the list find the Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body (Green Deal ORB) online. The G.D. Advisors report is 'fully portable' so you are free to choose from this list, or stay with British Gas.
Anyone who can fund the work by any other means is free to use any tradesman of course.

NaughtySpot wrote: »

This thread is very negative isn't it? Some quite aggressive posting going on which can make one feel stupid for even considering this.

Anyway; our assessment was done yesterday. A very pleasant man from British Gas was here for over two hours, and there was no hard sell from him at all which I'll admit to being surprised about. We were left with an EPC and we'll get a full report through the post sometime next week.

Advice was as I expected really; double glazing and a new boiler will make a good improvement. Also mentioned was under floor insulation and Solar Photovoltaics which I know very little about really.

The next step is to phone around some suppliers and see what they can do for us.

This is a good opportunity for us I feel. As another poster wrote earlier, when we bought this house energy efficiency wasn't even thought about, and an EPC wasn't available anyway.

Yes we will pay over the odds (probably) for the work being done, but the other option is to do nothing as there is no way we could afford to have this done anytime soon. If you are happy with this decision then this could work well for you.

As for those posters saying support your local tradesman etc; this is all well and good if they will even return your call and turn up to quote! I struggled to get a plumber to service my boiler when we moved here and ended up doing a service contract in the end, and I had a leaky pipe two months ago and again the same problem so extended the service contract to include plumbing. I also have some building work that needs doing and no-one is interested. At least the big companies come when they say and do the job for you...

Coulsdon_Town

Some fair comments.
But while i agree the Golden Rule could be dodgy over time, if it turns out not be, a cash-strapped householder is not being ripped off by interest rates in that the Green Deal improvements are repaying the loan and its interest, through the lowered energy bill. No doubt the financiers and others will make hay, and maybe the scheme was designed for their benefit, but if it helps some householders too, why not use it?
The numbers i gave were out of the air. However, in year one the saving is even smaller than you say, but far greater eventually, as follows (all hypothetical of course) : energy bill without Green Deal £1200, and with G.D. also £1200 (£800 for energy, £400 loan repayments). If the energy supplier raises prices by 10%, then without G.D. £1320, with G.D. £1280 (£880 for energy, £400 for loan). A paltry £40 saving. However, if prices rise by 10% every year for 10 years, i make that £3111 without G.D. and £2474 with G.D. including £400 loan repayments - a difference of £637 in year 11, with smaller savings every year before that. And that's assuming the Golden Rule was only just met in year one i.e. no net savings in the first year.
On top of that, the house is more comfortable and has fewer condensation issues, for example.

Me_fishy_u_chippie wrote: »

Coulsden town - I am not taking issue with you at all, but lets be honest, a saving of £120 a year, or £2.3 a week, wont even buy Mr Poor Pleb a pint a week!

The whole point I am making is clear and straightforward. Those people with the least energy efficient houses tend to be those who are unable or unwilling to pay for upgrades. By "offering" a loan like an olive branch, with no upfront costs to the householder but backloaded penal interest rates attached, is the sting in the tail. That is why this deal is a dog!

The money, our money, paid by taxation into the coffers of the Treasury is then given to a company in this case, GDFCo, whose members generate monumental profits - to shareholders, to be loaned back to the taxed, at punitive rates of interest - lining the back pockets of the middlemen and the shareholders of the member companies.

It is iniquitous.

Here is my suggestion; I feel it would be fairer and a much more appealing "deal", if the middlemen, GDFCo, (BG, Goldman Sachs et al) were either cut out altogether or, the interest rate capped at a "reasonable" rate say, half of what the assessment indicates would be saved. This would give meaning to the Golden Rule. IE the "savings" are shared - that way Mr Poor-Pleb pays a reasonable rate of interest on delivered savings, the middleman makes a reasonable rate of interest AND the providers are motivated to make the greatest possible savings(as the middlemen make more dosh and the government hits greater carbon reduction targets) not the fastest buck!

Lets face it - a guaranteed interest rate without a guaranteed return, just a wishy washy Golden Rule, not worth the paper its written on, is another government endorsed "thieves charter". Every Australian sportsman knows - rules are there to be broken.

This fish believes in equality not exploitation of the weakest and neediest.

Right I'm off to the fish farm!

Coulsdon_Town

I wouldn't necessarily be bothered by this debt at all. Every property for sale or rent now comes with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), and for any Green Deal-treated property the EPC will (must) show the loan repayments as well as the expected annual energy bill. Compare this EPC with any other property of interest, some of which will be non-Green Deal, and will have no loan but bigger energy bills. If i found that the Green Deal house had a similar or smaller expected annual total (including loan), then no problem, i'll have the debt and the much lower energy bill thanks. I would also ask to see some real energy bills, and i imagine any vendor with nothing to hide would be only too happy to oblige.
P.S. re dodgy landlords, a rented place with no EPC is now illegal and so is marketing it (estate agents) so don't let them get away with it! £200 fine for every property in the window that doesn't have one.

21Twinkle wrote: »

You don't get "Something for Nothing"
I would avoid this scheme like the plague !!

To start with - who is going to buy a house with a debt linked to it ?
Then there's the "inspection" fee - who will vet these "inspectors" and who says that what they say/do is not going to be linked back to a specific company

"RUN RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN - YOU CAN'T CATCH ME, I'M A GREEN DEAL MAN"

Me_fishy_u_chippie

Coulsdon_Town wrote: »

Some fair comments.
But while i agree the Golden Rule could be dodgy over time, if it turns out not be, a cash-strapped householder is not being ripped off by interest rates in that the Green Deal improvements are repaying the loan and its interest, through the lowered energy bill. No doubt the financiers and others will make hay, and maybe the scheme was designed for their benefit, but if it helps some householders too, why not use it?
The numbers i gave were out of the air. However, in year one the saving is even smaller than you say, but far greater eventually, as follows (all hypothetical of course) : energy bill without Green Deal £1200, and with G.D. also £1200 (£800 for energy, £400 loan repayments). If the energy supplier raises prices by 10%, then without G.D. £1320, with G.D. £1280 (£880 for energy, £400 for loan). A paltry £40 saving. However, if prices rise by 10% every year for 10 years, i make that £3111 without G.D. and £2474 with G.D. including £400 loan repayments - a difference of £637 in year 11, with smaller savings every year before that. And that's assuming the Golden Rule was only just met in year one i.e. no net savings in the first year.
On top of that, the house is more comfortable and has fewer condensation issues, for example.

The reason I signed up to this forum is really self evident in the title "Moneysavingexpert". Foisting debt onto people, especially those in far more perilous financial situations than my own, to me is socially irresponsible.

The deal is flawed in many many ways, the interest rate portion, the ownership of the loan portion, the conflict of interest between the assessors, providers and suppliers portion, the obvious conflict of interest in energy suppliers being involved with energy efficiency portion, the bankers who "advised" (and who stand to gain) on the punitive rates of interest and so it goes on!

I maybe cynical and indeed the experience of the last 15 years or so has made me that way - Ive seen far too many scandals with one group of winners and one group of losers - sadly the two camps always contain the same names, people and interest groups. There is a miserable predictability about it.

I believe that their are responsibilities when living within a society. I read Martin's introduction to the GD and whilst erudite - I could not help thinking this was someone "selling" me the idea.

As I inhabit the "energy efficiency of buildings space", I feel confident that this deal is NOT in the interests of the general public as it is. It is skewed very favourably, in the direction of those people already very well off both personally and corporately.

Odd that, considering "JustcallmeDave" was all for that ludicrous sound bite "The Big Society", not much here going to smaller organisations, communities and social enterprises or driving innovation and grass root businesses and inclusivity. No, this is all going to big big business dressed up as a good deal at the expense of Mr Poor-Pleb.

Therefore, it is important to point this out!

Coulsdon_Town

Fair enough.
I don't feel the same way at the moment.
There is also ECO (The Energy Companies Obligation). This i several pots of money which can be Given to people in certain circumstances e.g. on pension credit or tax credits/low income. You do still have to get a G.D. assessment done, but it's free money.

Richie-from-the-Boro

"Foisting debt onto people, especially those in far more perilous financial situations than my own, to me is socially irresponsible - Therefore, it is important to point this out!"

Have you noticed in general and in the particular, how in this very thread the unsuccessful early # promoters of the Green Deal have moved from a variety of what they described as a menu good reasons to an exclusive and targeted single meal reason of :

- hard up
- no money
- don't need any money to do it
- no spare cash
- don't need a credit rating
- cash-strapped householder

Sign here you mug, I've found a new way of selling it, the poor cold, infirm and deprived will come in hoards, they can't get finance at any price in the UK unless they come to me ....... get in line please .. .. sign here.

People with money or credit will see through this and realise a 30% saving, and they are already doing just that. The government published papers 6 months ago expressing exactly those fears, yet the scheme went ahead. Driving the poor in a straight line into debt in a desperate but understandable need to care for their family is a disgraceful act.