Falsified EPCs created by an Assessor - urgency to do something...

TheJP

fewcloudy said:

anselld said:

Section62 said:

anselld said:

adviseforumthanks said:

My point is that if there is prima facia evidence that something is wrong -  the accreditation company should not be advertising EPCs as valid. That way estate agents would have to delay the marketing of sales or letting until things are done right and the landlord would be compelled to act.
 

What is the prima facie evidence though?   The previous EPCs are not evidence since they are equally likely to be incorrect.

And prima facie, they do suggest something is wrong.

They don't in themselves suggest anything otherwise every property where the EPC improved from one assessment to the next would be suspect.  The only suspicion has originated from the OP and they have not stated any evidence to support the suspicion.

Well they sort of have. Maybe not evidence, but I think they seemed to suggest that they “know” that no work has been done to the house, and this troubles them🤷🏼‍♂️

Its like walking past a building site and thinking i bet they don't have the right permissions in place, im going to report them. The OP has no shred of evidence apart from two different EPCs which they also don't know if one was incorrect in the first place. The OP has no idea what has taken place in the property, not set foot in it but yet they are accusing people of falsifying documents for gain.

Id be all for the OP in the escapade if they were able to show evidence that would stick, all i see is assumptions and accusations from someone who may or may not have an axe to grind. The solution they constantly look for ratification from the forum is some sort of penalty against the owners of the property. 

adviseforumthanks

anselld said:

They don't in themselves suggest anything otherwise every property where the EPC improved from one assessment to the next would be suspect.  The only suspicion has originated from the OP and they have not stated any evidence to support the suspicion.

OLD Mar-21 EPC - Grade G

Wall: Solid brick, as built, no insulation (assumed) - Poor

Roof: Pitched, no insulation (assumed) - Very poor

Roof: Roof room(s), no insulation (assumed) - Very poor

Window: Fully double glazed - Average

Main heating: Room heaters, electric - Very poor

Main heating control: Appliance thermostats - Good

Hot water: Electric immersion, off-peak - Average

Lighting: Low energy lighting in 45% of fixed outlets - Good

Floor: Solid, no insulation (assumed) - N/A

Secondary heating: None - N/A

NEW Aug-21 EPC - Grade C

Wall: Solid brick, as built, insulated (assumed) - Good

Roof:  Pitched, 200mm loft insulation - Good

Window: Fully double glazed - Average

Main heating: Room heaters, electric - Average

Main heating control: Appliance thermostats -  Good

Hot water:  Electric immersion, off-peak - Average

Lighting:  Low energy lighting in all fixed outlets - Very good

Floor:  Solid, insulated - N/A

Secondary heating:  None - N/A

 

Its a bit obvious, but to give examples:

OLD G rated EPC: Roof room(s), no insulation (assumed)

NEW C rated EPC: Pitched roof with 200mm insulation

(Unlikely to remove the loft bedroom in a 2-bed only house and replace with insulation instead?)

OLD G rated EPC: Solid brick, as built, no insulation (assumed)

NEW C rated EPC: Solid brick, as built, insulated (assumed)

(Grade 2 listed old building not likely to be insulted within walls?)

OLD G rated EPC: Solid, no insulation (assumed)

NEW C rated EPC: Solid, insulated 

(Unlikely to be insulated floor in older building - not sure if it effects rating as N/A though?)

QED one of the EPCs are suspect

Evidence pointing towards NEW EPC being incorrect due building age

Irrespective of which one is wrong or right...

If any is suspect then should not be published as valid

...sound reasonable?

TheJP

adviseforumthanks said:

anselld said:

They don't in themselves suggest anything otherwise every property where the EPC improved from one assessment to the next would be suspect.  The only suspicion has originated from the OP and they have not stated any evidence to support the suspicion.

OLD Mar-21 EPC - Grade G

Wall: Solid brick, as built, no insulation (assumed) - Poor

Roof: Pitched, no insulation (assumed) - Very poor

Roof: Roof room(s), no insulation (assumed) - Very poor

Window: Fully double glazed - Average

Main heating: Room heaters, electric - Very poor

Main heating control: Appliance thermostats - Good

Hot water: Electric immersion, off-peak - Average

Lighting: Low energy lighting in 45% of fixed outlets - Good

Floor: Solid, no insulation (assumed) - N/A

Secondary heating: None - N/A

NEW Aug-21 EPC - Grade C

Wall: Solid brick, as built, insulated (assumed) - Good

Roof:  Pitched, 200mm loft insulation - Good

Window: Fully double glazed - Average

Main heating: Room heaters, electric - Average

Main heating control: Appliance thermostats -  Good

Hot water:  Electric immersion, off-peak - Average

Lighting:  Low energy lighting in all fixed outlets - Very good

Floor:  Solid, insulated - N/A

Secondary heating:  None - N/A

 

Its a bit obvious, but to give examples:

OLD G rated EPC: Roof room(s), no insulation (assumed)

NEW C rated EPC: Pitched roof with 200mm insulation

(Unlikely to remove the loft bedroom in a 2-bed only house and replace with insulation instead?)

OLD G rated EPC: Solid brick, as built, no insulation (assumed)

NEW C rated EPC: Solid brick, as built, insulated (assumed)

(Grade 2 listed old building not likely to be insulted within walls?)

OLD G rated EPC: Solid, no insulation (assumed)

NEW C rated EPC: Solid, insulated 

(Unlikely to be insulated floor in older building - not sure if it effects rating as N/A though?)

QED one of the EPCs are suspect

Evidence pointing towards NEW EPC being incorrect due building age

Irrespective of which one is wrong or right...

If any is suspect then should not be published as valid

...sound reasonable?

But you have no evidence that the owners brought in insulation and upgraded the heaters. Surely you are not watching the property 24hrs a day? The grade G report has a lot of assumed input, the grade C report may have been more vigorous in their inspections.

Section62

TheJP said:

Its like walking past a building site and thinking i bet they don't have the right permissions in place, im going to report them. The OP has no shred of evidence apart from two different EPCs which they also don't know if one was incorrect in the first place. The OP has no idea what has taken place in the property, not set foot in it but yet they are accusing people of falsifying documents for gain.

Id be all for the OP in the escapade if they were able to show evidence that would stick, all i see is assumptions and accusations from someone who may or may not have an axe to grind. The solution they constantly look for ratification from the forum is some sort of penalty against the owners of the property. 

(BiB) I'm not seeing that.  I see the OP asking that the new EPC is reviewed/audited, and querying whether in the meantime people who might rely on the content of that EPC (prospective tenants) should be made aware there is a possible question mark over the rating, and the potential consequences if they aren't.

And the irony of your post is the OP has presented more evidence of his claims than you have of yours (both BiI).

TheJP

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

Its like walking past a building site and thinking i bet they don't have the right permissions in place, im going to report them. The OP has no shred of evidence apart from two different EPCs which they also don't know if one was incorrect in the first place. The OP has no idea what has taken place in the property, not set foot in it but yet they are accusing people of falsifying documents for gain.

Id be all for the OP in the escapade if they were able to show evidence that would stick, all i see is assumptions and accusations from someone who may or may not have an axe to grind. The solution they constantly look for ratification from the forum is some sort of penalty against the owners of the property. 

(BiB) I'm not seeing that.  I see the OP asking that the new EPC is reviewed/audited, and querying whether in the meantime people who might rely on the content of that EPC (prospective tenants) should be made aware there is a possible question mark over the rating, and the potential consequences if they aren't.

And the irony of your post is the OP has presented more evidence of his claims than you have of yours (both BiI).

You only have to go through the post and you will see the OP ask many times what the penalty the landlord will face if they have tenants in situ or if they can be prohibited from letting the house out etc.

The OP has presented no evidence apart from assumptions, even the EPC she is comparing the alleged falsified EPC against has a lot of assumption information not factual evidence. Have they been in the house and seen for themselves that the changes in the EPC have been made? 

Section62

TheJP said:

You only have to go through the post and you will see the OP ask many times what the penalty the landlord will face if they have tenants in situ or if they can be prohibited from letting the house out etc.

I think you might be adding a lot of your own interpretation in there.

TheJP said:

The OP has presented no evidence apart from assumptions, even the EPC she is comparing the alleged falsified EPC against has a lot of assumption information not factual evidence.

Did you read ComicGeek's comments about how some of those assumptions are derived?  If not, you might want to go back to the earlier part of the thread and give that point some further thought.

TheJP said:

Have they been in the house and seen for themselves that the changes in the EPC have been made?

Why are you asking me?

You stated as fact "The OP has...not set foot in it".  Surely you had evidence that was the case before saying so?  Or was your post just "assumptions and accusations"?  But that aside, what makes you think it is a necessity to go in the house to know whether or not certain changes have been made?


I'm really interested in this topic, and I hope the OP sticks with it and keeps us updated on progress.  Given the abuse they have received from some posters on here I wouldn't blame them if they gave this thread up as a dead loss. I hope they don't though.

So in the spirit of the forum rules about being nice to people etc, perhaps those who disagree with the OP should simply ignore this thread and let those interested in the topic get on with discussing it?  On my part that would be much appreciated, thanks.

anselld

What would be evidence would be if you went inside and inspected the insulation and found the claimed 200mm does not exist.  That may be what an auditor does if the OP makes enough noise, but everything else is assumptions and hearsay, both on the part of the OP and both sets of assessors.
It does suggest that the whole EPC system is flawed, which was probably never in dispute, but a crusade against a single property isn't going to change that.

TheJP

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

You only have to go through the post and you will see the OP ask many times what the penalty the landlord will face if they have tenants in situ or if they can be prohibited from letting the house out etc.

I think you might be adding a lot of your own interpretation in there.

TheJP said:

The OP has presented no evidence apart from assumptions, even the EPC she is comparing the alleged falsified EPC against has a lot of assumption information not factual evidence.

Did you read ComicGeek's comments about how some of those assumptions are derived?  If not, you might want to go back to the earlier part of the thread and give that point some further thought.

TheJP said:

Have they been in the house and seen for themselves that the changes in the EPC have been made?

Why are you asking me?

You stated as fact "The OP has...not set foot in it".  Surely you had evidence that was the case before saying so?  Or was your post just "assumptions and accusations"?  But that aside, what makes you think it is a necessity to go in the house to know whether or not certain changes have been made?


I'm really interested in this topic, and I hope the OP sticks with it and keeps us updated on progress.  Given the abuse they have received from some posters on here I wouldn't blame them if they gave this thread up as a dead loss. I hope they don't though.

So in the spirit of the forum rules about being nice to people etc, perhaps those who disagree with the OP should simply ignore this thread and let those interested in the topic get on with discussing it?  On my part that would be much appreciated, thanks.

Look you're obviously on the OPs side and you're pedantic comments prove that. Your comment about comicbooks comments (who is lets say an EPC assessor) still state that there is a discrepancy but not certain weather its assessor A or B. 

No one has given the OP abuse (see rules) but purely asked for more information to be able to advise yet the OP ignores it. You make many assumptions on interest and topic and those should ignore it. Im interested in finding out weather the OP is true or on a crusade because of some other reason. 

Stop quoting forum rules if you haven't actually read them.

Section62

TheJP said:

Look you're obviously on the OPs side and you're pedantic comments prove that. Your comment about comicbooks comments (who is lets say an EPC assessor) still state that there is a discrepancy but not certain weather its assessor A or B. 

No one has given the OP abuse (see rules) but purely asked for more information to be able to advise yet the OP ignores it. You make many assumptions on interest and topic and those should ignore it. Im interested in finding out weather the OP is true or on a crusade because of some other reason. 

Stop quoting forum rules if you haven't actually read them.

This -

ComicGeek said:

So the main thing is going to be the build date of the properties - if the assessor enters this wrongly, then even solid brick gets entered as 'as built insulated'. For example, a solid brick house from 1900 would have a U-value of 2.1; entering it as say 1985 as solid brick would assume internal insulation with an assumed U-value of 0.6, so a reduction in heat loss through the walls of about 70%. 

That affects a lot of other things within the calculation, which is why it's so important to get this right. 

Chumy

I wish I have as much time to spare as the OP.