Govt. plans to target mortgages to EPC's could leave many homes unsaleable

NameUnavailable

Section62 said:

Chandler85 said:

While EPC are full of assumptions, because lets face it, the guy has about 10 minutes to do it, they will continue to be ignored unless mortgage companies force them to be taken into account.  Which makes the system worse, if you have people who assume things and then give you a rubbish EPC, so you can't sell your house as easily due to a 10 minute assessment.

For them to be useful they need to be done properly, not all double glazing is the same.  I've seen double glazed houses that the EPC says needs the single glazed windows replacing etc, and these are new EPCs.  It is like the assessor just doesn't look.  Though to be fair, I had a surveyor tell me a glazed internal door was not safety glass and needed replacing due to being dangerous.  The door had laminated glass in it and was perfectly safe, the glass even said in the corner it was laminate...

I touched on this point the other day.  The current EPC system is rubbish in part because people don't treat it seriously. 

People are going to need to pay for good quality energy assessments (in the same way some pay for a level 3 survey) if they want to demonstrate their (non-standard) property actually has a performance level far in excess of the nonsense the current box-ticking exercise produces.

I wasn't aware that we could order a 'basic/cheap' EPC or a 'quality' one, it's just an EPC - what you say makes sense but that relies on a complete change to the current system and there's no mention of that in any of the stuff I've read about what EPC's are going to mean for landlords and home buyers/sellers in a few years time.

So how exactly do you go about getting a good quality assessment?

lookstraightahead

Section62 said:

Chandler85 said:

While EPC are full of assumptions, because lets face it, the guy has about 10 minutes to do it, they will continue to be ignored unless mortgage companies force them to be taken into account.  Which makes the system worse, if you have people who assume things and then give you a rubbish EPC, so you can't sell your house as easily due to a 10 minute assessment.

For them to be useful they need to be done properly, not all double glazing is the same.  I've seen double glazed houses that the EPC says needs the single glazed windows replacing etc, and these are new EPCs.  It is like the assessor just doesn't look.  Though to be fair, I had a surveyor tell me a glazed internal door was not safety glass and needed replacing due to being dangerous.  The door had laminated glass in it and was perfectly safe, the glass even said in the corner it was laminate...

I touched on this point the other day.  The current EPC system is rubbish in part because people don't treat it seriously.  It is a number and letter that most people ignore - other than complying with the law requiring them to get one if they sell their property.

If the stakes are upped - i.e. whether or not your property is mortgageable depends on the assessment - then people will start taking them more seriously and pay for a quality report produced by an expert, rather than some nonsense churned out by an ex-salesperson who did an hour-long online 'training' course.

If the framework for producing quality EPCs is not right (it isn't) then there will also be consumer pressure for change - e.g. using NIV's example that cob walls are recognised for the thermal performance they have, rather than ignored because they aren't "insulated cavity walls".

People are going to need to pay for good quality energy assessments (in the same way some pay for a level 3 survey) if they want to demonstrate their (non-standard) property actually has a performance level far in excess of the nonsense the current box-ticking exercise produces.

The incentive to do that will be when buyers find they can't get a mortgage for a property with poor energy efficiency (under the current system) and the vendors realise they need to pay for a more representative report.

Or perhaps the roles need to be reversed and - as with surveys - the EPC needs to be produced on the buyer's behalf, with a costed plan for energy efficiency improvements included as part of the mortgage application (and funding reserved to do this).

Excellent post 

lookstraightahead

[Deleted User] said:

Doozergirl said:

another_casualty said:

Doozergirl said:

You should probably re-read your signature and follow your own advice, @another_casualty


Have you read the thread?  There's a
sensible conversation happening, which you're welcome to join.  

Thanks@Doozergirl for the advice . 

This is true it is a sensible conversation which I have joined.
I'm trying to work out how am I supposed to pay for a new boiler for example if my present one is ripped out . How much would it cost to pay to get a Victorian converted flat up to standard ? Why should  we pay ? Obviously loft insulation isn't much of an issue . 

Home owners have a responsibility to maintain their properties etc but for all of this green issue to be rammed down our throats by 2030 when we will still have to pay for everything doesn't seem possible .   It is possible I have got the wrong end of the stick of course..

Your choice is to pay either in upgrading the house or in increasing energy costs.  Fossil fuels are a finite resource, even if you don't care about your own consumption.  

I have insulted many, many houses over a period of two decades. We've had a very long time to start taking this seriously.  There's no throat ramming.    The state of our planet shouldn't be a party political thing but some will offer to help consumers more than others.  If you're not going to vote for anything then you will get what you are given.  

Problem is a lot of people, especially FTBs, are struggling to afford houses already. With extra cost an no assistance it's just going to make the situation worse.

It's part of the cost house ownership. It's not cheap. A bit like running a car. House ownership isn't a right.

What assistance, and who to, do you propose? 

Section62

Chandler85 said:

The more long term answer is surely to upgrade the electricity infrastructure to everywhere and also increase power generation from renewal sources, such as tidal, wind, solar, hydro electric etc.  Maybe Nuclear as well.

This isn't really the whole answer.  Even renewables have an environmental impact, let alone the financial cost.  The future is going to require us to use energy more carefully, and use a lot less of it, rather than simply creating more generating capacity to maintain the status quo.

Chandler85 said:

I imagine worldwide there is 10,000s of Gigawatts wasted daily through overproduction of power overnight etc, as you can't just turn off power stations, which if shared would help solve the problem as well.

It depends on the type of power station, and the level of backup/reserve you have in the system.

Traditional thermal power stations (e.g. coal-fired) took time to bring into operation or shut down.  If there was a failure (on the grid or of a power station) it was necessary to have other power station(s) ready and running to fill the gap.  The construction of pumped-storage sites like Dinorwig and Cruachan were to help fill that gap as generating capacity which could be quickly switched on.  Pumped storage, and encouraging people to use electricity at night (e.g. Economy 7) meant that the output of the base coal-fired power stations cold be usefully employed whilst keeping sufficient resilience in the grid. It was all good.

Renewables have created a new problem that solar is 'switched off' overnight, and wind only generates when the conditions are right. Wind output can be 'switched off' when demand is low, but the incentive schemes that got the owners to build them mean money is paid whether there is an output or not.  To solve this we need a lot more storage capacity on the grid - not necessarily just an increase in generating capacity.

Sharing (between countries) is also part of the mix - however it isn't a perfect solution as neighbouring countries are likely to experience the same problems (e.g. darkness, no wind, cold, heat) at broadly the same time.  And transmitting electricity over long distances is not 100% efficient with increasing losses the further you have to move it.  Moreover, the sharing requires the use of a limited number of interconnectors, which results in points of weakness where a failure can have a devastating effect.  The fire affecting a France-UK interconnector in September this year is an example of this vulnerability, and its impact on energy prices is being felt right now.

Section62

NameUnavailable said:

Section62 said:

I touched on this point the other day.  The current EPC system is rubbish in part because people don't treat it seriously. 

People are going to need to pay for good quality energy assessments (in the same way some pay for a level 3 survey) if they want to demonstrate their (non-standard) property actually has a performance level far in excess of the nonsense the current box-ticking exercise produces.

I wasn't aware that we could order a 'basic/cheap' EPC or a 'quality' one, it's just an EPC - what you say makes sense but that relies on a complete change to the current system and there's no mention of that in any of the stuff I've read about what EPC's are going to mean for landlords and home buyers/sellers in a few years time.

So how exactly do you go about getting a good quality assessment?

As I said yesterday, and repeated the gist today -

The industry is quite happy with the current system.  It will only change when there is sufficient pressure for it to change.

The vast majority of consumers are not interested in the accuracy and representative quality of the current EPC system.  If they are concerned at all then it is whether the property is an A or B, or is Ok to use as a BTL. There is no desire to look under the bonnet.

Pressure for change will only happen when enough people are affected by the problems the current system contains.  Until then, people like you and me pointing out the flaws is broadly equivalent to talking to lampposts.

At present the only way of getting a slightly better quality assessment is to shop around and find an assessor who will put in a bit more effort, rather than using the cheapest one or leaving it up to an EA to pick one for you.

The industry needs to change.  If it wasn't clear from my post, I was talking about how things should be, not how they are.

BikingBud

Section62 said:

Chandler85 said:

While EPC are full of assumptions, because lets face it, the guy has about 10 minutes to do it, they will continue to be ignored unless mortgage companies force them to be taken into account.  Which makes the system worse, if you have people who assume things and then give you a rubbish EPC, so you can't sell your house as easily due to a 10 minute assessment.

For them to be useful they need to be done properly, not all double glazing is the same.  I've seen double glazed houses that the EPC says needs the single glazed windows replacing etc, and these are new EPCs.  It is like the assessor just doesn't look.  Though to be fair, I had a surveyor tell me a glazed internal door was not safety glass and needed replacing due to being dangerous.  The door had laminated glass in it and was perfectly safe, the glass even said in the corner it was laminate...

I touched on this point the other day.  The current EPC system is rubbish in part because people don't treat it seriously.  It is a number and letter that most people ignore - other than complying with the law requiring them to get one if they sell their property.

If the stakes are upped - i.e. whether or not your property is mortgageable depends on the assessment - then people will start taking them more seriously and pay for a quality report produced by an expert, rather than some nonsense churned out by an ex-salesperson who did an hour-long online 'training' course.

If the framework for producing quality EPCs is not right (it isn't) then there will also be consumer pressure for change - e.g. using NIV's example that cob walls are recognised for the thermal performance they have, rather than ignored because they aren't "insulated cavity walls".

People are going to need to pay for good quality energy assessments (in the same way some pay for a level 3 survey) if they want to demonstrate their (non-standard) property actually has a performance level far in excess of the nonsense the current box-ticking exercise produces.

The incentive to do that will be when buyers find they can't get a mortgage for a property with poor energy efficiency (under the current system) and the vendors realise they need to pay for a more representative report.

Or perhaps the roles need to be reversed and - as with surveys - the EPC needs to be produced on the buyer's behalf, with a costed plan for energy efficiency improvements included as part of the mortgage application (and funding reserved to do this).

The quality of the EPC needs to be addressed, where is the jeopardy for an inaccurate report, if they are enforced they need to be enforced to a quality standard. There is no excuse for factual errors as the purchaser you should understand what you are buying and be prepared to challenge and where necessary complain and accreditation should be revoked.

When you choose a surveyor or supplier you should make sure then can assess the property in question, if you live in a thatched cottage would you seek advice from a building surveyor that was not competent with thatched rooves? If the surveyor in Devon doesn't understand cob and cannot provide a more considered and tailored report then do they have little utility in Devon?

Also the last point would place some emphasis on vendors to improve the to building so that their aspirational price has more chance of being achieved.

Gavin83

Section62 said:

Chandler85 said:

The more long term answer is surely to upgrade the electricity infrastructure to everywhere and also increase power generation from renewal sources, such as tidal, wind, solar, hydro electric etc.  Maybe Nuclear as well.

This isn't really the whole answer.  Even renewables have an environmental impact, let alone the financial cost.  The future is going to require us to use energy more carefully, and use a lot less of it, rather than simply creating more generating capacity to maintain the status quo.

And how do you suggest that’s achieved? As time goes on more and more houses are built and each has more and more electrical devices in it. With the push to electric cars this’ll just push up demand further.

Before you suggest it energy rationing is not an answer. There is no way in a million years any Government would be brave enough to suggest such a policy. 

The more I hear about it the more I reckon it’s just hot air and nothing much will change. Only yesterday I heard the Government are hoping no one will buy a new gas boiler past 2035. That’s far enough away that I really don’t think it’s a problem to worry about today and by that point another solution might well present itself.

My house is currently rated EPC C so I figure it’ll be even longer before I have to worry about such things.

Thrugelmir

Gavin83 said:

Section62 said:

Chandler85 said:

The more long term answer is surely to upgrade the electricity infrastructure to everywhere and also increase power generation from renewal sources, such as tidal, wind, solar, hydro electric etc.  Maybe Nuclear as well.

This isn't really the whole answer.  Even renewables have an environmental impact, let alone the financial cost.  The future is going to require us to use energy more carefully, and use a lot less of it, rather than simply creating more generating capacity to maintain the status quo.

Before you suggest it energy rationing is not an answer. There is no way in a million years any Government would be brave enough to suggest such a policy. 

Perhaps people are going to have to return to a time of thinking for themselves and not expect the nanny state to resolve all their problems for them. 

ic

NameUnavailable said:

I wasn't aware that we could order a 'basic/cheap' EPC or a 'quality' one, it's just an EPC - what you say makes sense but that relies on a complete change to the current system and there's no mention of that in any of the stuff I've read about what EPC's are going to mean for landlords and home buyers/sellers in a few years time.

So how exactly do you go about getting a good quality assessment?

I'd agree its pot-luck what rating you get.  Just looked back at my old end-of-terrace house's EPC. With a condensing boiler, cavity wall insulation, 300mm loft insulation, triple glazed windows and doors, and full LED it scored D.  The mirror image house at the opposite end of the terrace got an EPC a week later (I presume for landlord, as house hasn't been sold) - with an old gas boiler, no cavity wall insulation, 50mm loft insulation, old double glazing, wooden front door and full LED lighting... it scored D. 

Likewise a flat we rent out scored EPC band D ten years ago. The latest EPC has scored it with zero improvements at band C.

Clearly, if you don't score a good enough rating, just pay for another EPC with another assessor.  Keep getting EPCs until you score the rating you need!

Gavin83

Thrugelmir said:

Gavin83 said:

Section62 said:

Chandler85 said:

The more long term answer is surely to upgrade the electricity infrastructure to everywhere and also increase power generation from renewal sources, such as tidal, wind, solar, hydro electric etc.  Maybe Nuclear as well.

This isn't really the whole answer.  Even renewables have an environmental impact, let alone the financial cost.  The future is going to require us to use energy more carefully, and use a lot less of it, rather than simply creating more generating capacity to maintain the status quo.

Before you suggest it energy rationing is not an answer. There is no way in a million years any Government would be brave enough to suggest such a policy. 

Perhaps people are going to have to return to a time of thinking for themselves and not expect the nanny state to resolve all their problems for them. 

Well if a non nanny state is one where a Government states there isn’t enough energy due to our policies, you deal with it then I’m happy to live in a nanny state.

Our definition of a nanny state clearly differs though. I would see the sufficient supply of energy as a basic requirement of any Government.