MSE News: Landlords to be forced to improve energy efficiency of homes

dimbo61

I have done the lot.
Cavity wall and 10" loft insulation with Help from the Local council
New A rated double glazing, Energy saving bulbs ( changing them to LED as not happy with the light)
A rated Which best buy boiler and new radiators and most of the appliances are A rated and still only a "B " rating on the EPC which
No Tenant has EVER asked to see yet
Only way to get "A" rated on EPC is with Solar panels

TartanSaver

jjlandlord wrote: »

Why 'scummy' landlords?

Because, as discussed above, properties have to be REALLY bad already to be below E. A good landlord would look to invest in a dilapidated property before it becomes a statutory requirement to make them slightly less crap.

jjlandlord wrote: »

If, as the article suggests, Green Deals can specifically be used to meet these new obligations then there is nothing wrong in using them.
They don't increase energy bills after all, right?

Green Deal is a loan with interest, and this is offloading that cost onto the tenant, who might not benefit.

jjlandlord wrote: »

What do people expect anyway? If this has a cost impact on landlords and makes properties more appealing at the same time then it will just push rents up.
Tenants will pay for it one way or another.

While there's some truth in this, that doesn't entirely apply to a minimum legal requirement. Prices are mostly down to supply and demand. Imposing a "floor" on energy quality will not mean tenants suddenly have more money to give to their landlords, nor will they (necessarily) mean that the supply of properties reduces. Therefore, if it was truly compulsory (and not funded by Green Deal) landlords would have no choice but to either:
invest and continue letting
or sell the property to someone who either wants to live in it, or who is willing to invest in it for letting.

Even if many landlords choose the latter, it just drives down the price to buy these properties.

poppy10_2

Abrielle wrote: »

What are the rules for local authority/housing association landlords? My daughter's house in Scotland is very poorly insulated and she has had to instal another heater as the houses is so cold.

This rule change won't affect Scotland

Pincher

skint-student-nurse wrote: »

I think, from what I understand of the ECP report, is that the only reason the property is not an F is because of the energy efficient light bulbs.

If I had known, I would have swapped out the bulbs for energy saving ones for the inspection. I actually gave the tenants about ten energy saving ones, but they don't like the look of them, and in fact is using 100W incandescent ones, designer pretty, which is charring the ceiling. The previous 60W candle bulbs never charred the ceiling for many years.

Johnandabby

theartfullodger wrote: »

Could someone help me please? What/which/when regulations brought into law this requirement, please?? The ability to make such regulations is in Energy Act 2011 Section 43...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/part/1/chapter/2
- but where are the regulations detailing that change, please?

PS My let properties are all "E" or better.

No, you're absolutely right, the pass/fail line has not yet been set. There has been talk of F and G ratings being a fail, but nothing concrete. And because the govt keep fiddling with the calculation software, an E rating now doesn't mean it will be an E rating in 10 years time or so when the EPC is renewed.

Don't expect any details until 2017, and it will then have to be watered down with lots of caveats to meet the date target.

stator

jjlandlord wrote: »

Why 'scummy' landlords?

If, as the article suggests, Green Deals can specifically be used to meet these new obligations then there is nothing wrong in using them.
They don't increase energy bills after all, right?

The problem is basically this:
Tenant views house, sees Double Glazing, checks it has cavity wall insulation, loft insulation etc, good boiler. Tenant looks at EPC, it shows a B, thinks great, I'll rent this house. Tenant signs contract and moves in. Then tenant finds out the energy bills are 50% higher than he thought because he now has to pay for improvements he thought were already included in the rent.
Landlord is laughing all the way to the bank because he's getting someone else to pay for the upgrades to his house. Just another way for slumlords to rip off their tenants.

theartfullodger

Johnandabby wrote: »

No, you're absolutely right, the pass/fail line has not yet been set. There has been talk of F and G ratings being a fail, but nothing concrete. And because the govt keep fiddling with the calculation software, an E rating now doesn't mean it will be an E rating in 10 years time or so when the EPC is renewed.

Don't expect any details until 2017, and it will then have to be watered down with lots of caveats to meet the date target.

Thanks John, what I thought: My own cynical view is no government is going to take tens- or thousands- or tens-of-thousands- of properties out of the letting market.. and have those tenants residing upon cold, wet, park benches. My own guess is that "Can't have 'G'" may come in, but surrounded by caveats and with relaxed timescales. £14:49 says (to agreed housing charity) "No G or F" will not be mandatory in England & Wales for PRS in 2018.

I'm all for energy saving measures & think the government right to encourage them: What I'm not happy about are the HUGE subsidies people are getting for inefficient, unjustifiable and ugly solar and wind systems that are very largely only bought for the kick-back the owner gets from the taxpayers.

Cheers!

jjlandlord

stator wrote: »

The problem is basically this:
Tenant views house, sees Double Glazing, checks it has cavity wall insulation, loft insulation etc, good boiler. Tenant looks at EPC, it shows a B, thinks great, I'll rent this house. Tenant signs contract and moves in. Then tenant finds out the energy bills are 50% higher than he thought because he now has to pay for improvements he thought were already included in the rent.
Landlord is laughing all the way to the bank because he's getting someone else to pay for the upgrades to his house. Just another way for slumlords to rip off their tenants.

That has been the issue with Green Deals since day one.

Instead of calling landlords names, perhaps it would be more constructive to advice that this is something prospective tenants should enquire about.
This also applies to prospective buyers.

stator

jjlandlord wrote: »

Instead of calling landlords names, perhaps it would be more constructive to advice that this is something prospective tenants should enquire about.
This also applies to prospective buyers.

Sellers of houses are legally required to inform the potential buyers about any green deal loans.
The question is whether landlords are also legally required to do so? Even if they are it's unlikely many of them will because they know they can take advantage of tenants who have no option but to either shut up or be evicted.

kinger101

jjlandlord wrote: »

That has been the issue with Green Deals since day one.

Instead of calling landlords names, perhaps it would be more constructive to advice that this is something prospective tenants should enquire about.
This also applies to prospective buyers.

stator wrote:

Sellers of houses are legally required to inform the potential buyers about any green deal loans.
The question is whether landlords are also legally required to do so? Even if they are it's unlikely many of them will because they know they can take advantage of tenants who have no option but to either shut up or be evicted.

I believe this is something that will be disclosed on the EPC certificate. So the tenant should be made aware of any loading on their bill.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294616/Res_Landlord.pdf