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

TheJP

Section62 said:

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. 

!!!!!!...!!!!!!...!!!!!!...sumption! Thats all you say. No facts at all. Show me the facts.

jonesey1985

Section62 said:

jonesey1985 said:

Section62 said:

jonesey1985 said:

Perhaps because some people don't want to be used as tools to get the landlord relieved of his property.

How would ^that^ work?  It would still be the landlord's property?

In any event, if people don't comment on the thread they can't be used in that way.

The landlord being forced to sell because he can't afford to bring it up to standard?

That wouldn't be a case of the landlord being "relieved of his property".

"Relieved of his property" means having it taken off you (involuntarily) with no compensation.

If the landlord(s) decide not to invest in energy efficiency improvements (partly the reason for EPCs to exist in the first place) then it would be a business decision by the landlord(s) to sell rather than invest - one of the risks of doing business is having to deal with situations like that.

The landlord(s) purchased properties with 'G' and 'F' ratings.  If the new EPCs were voided the landlord(s) would still own properties with 'G' and 'F' ratings and would be able to sell them on that basis.  They should not lose out financially to a significant extent, but if they do, then that is just a risk of doing business (particularly if you embark on a business with a lack of capital to support your modest ambitions)

I think your sympathy for the landlords is misplaced in this case.


If the EPC system is to have any value then it needs to work on the basis of people being encouraged to invest in meaningful energy efficiency improvements, rather than getting a 'windfall' bonus of getting lucky with an EPC assessor willing to make different assumptions to a previous one.

There's a risk here (generally, not necessarily this case) of a lucky few being able to 'game' the system to make good profits at the potential expense of people who are least able to afford it.  You might think that OK, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm fully aware of what being relieved of ones property means.  I don't need an English lesson, thanks

It was a deliberate choice of words, given the OP is trying to force the landlord to sell their property because they don't like it being a rental property.

Section62 said:

jonesey1985 said:

...you come across a PDF document which does seem to indicate that estate agents need to comply to the Consumer Protection (CPR) and Misleading Marketing Regulations (BPR) Acts 2008. Seems to state:

"Where your client or third parties provide you with information that you know is wrong, or have reason to believe may be wrong, you should follow up with questions, ask for documented proof and/or make your own enquiries in order to satisfy yourself what is correct."

Zero, because they don't know it's wrong.

You appear to have missed the wording "...or have reason to believe may be wrong..."

Being told by a third party that information may be incorrect is valid reason to "believe [it] may be wrong" and therefore initiate the enquiries outlined in the text quoted above.

The EA won't know it is wrong (for sure) without asking questions and making enquiries.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

They have no reason to believe the EPC has been falsified.  A report from another occupant with an axe to grind doesn't create a reasonable belief.

adviseforumthanks

Yes, this is my understanding, there can't be assumptions of wall insulation on the new EPC with a house this old - pre 1985. And there is no chance they would remove one of the loft bedrooms in a house that only has 2 beds (including the loft one) and put in insulation instead. New EPC doesn't even mentioned room in roof in it. Have been inside previously. 

This is just one of the homes in the detached building. More or less same story with the other home as was given new rating of C by the same assesor. Was previously a Grade F

The other home: OLD Mar-19 EPC - Grade F

Wall: Solid brick, as built, no insulation (assumed) Poor
Roof: Roof room(s), no insulation (assumed) Very poor
Window: Fully double glazed Average
Main: heating Electric storage heaters Average
Main: heating control Manual charge control Poor
Hot water: Electric immersion, off-peak Average
Lighting: Low energy lighting in all fixed outlets Very good
Floor: Solid, no insulation (assumed) N/A
Secondary heating: Portable electric heaters (assumed) N/A

 

Am curious if high-retention heaters were fitted into the above Grade F home (which I understand is possible), would that alone bring the rating up enough for renting (if not to Grade C)?


 

ComicGeek

TheJP said:

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.

Even if the owners have installed new insulation, the new EPC has used the incorrect entry for this. The fact that suddenly the walls and floor are 'assumed' to have insulation as built means that 100% the wrong build date has been used. Very obvious to anyone who produces or audits EPCs, I could see this in a few seconds from looking at the information. I'm not able to judge what the correct EPC rating should be, I can only tell you 100% that the new EPC has been entered incorrectly - whether it's been done on purpose or through a series of errors, the annual heating requirement has been massively reduced as a result. There is a very small margin of error allowed on audits, so this will fail by a mile.

It is good that the accreditation body is responding to this as they would see very quickly that it was very suspect - the OP obviously found a rare proactive person there, which is good to hear.

adviseforumthanks

ComicGeek said:

Even if the owners have installed new insulation, the new EPC has used the incorrect entry for this. The fact that suddenly the walls and floor are 'assumed' to have insulation as built means that 100% the wrong build date has been used. Very obvious to anyone who produces or audits EPCs, I could see this in a few seconds from looking at the information. I'm not able to judge what the correct EPC rating should be, I can only tell you 100% that the new EPC has been entered incorrectly - whether it's been done on purpose or through a series of errors, the annual heating requirement has been massively reduced as a result. There is a very small margin of error allowed on audits, so this will fail by a mile.

It is good that the accreditation body is responding to this as they would see very quickly that it was very suspect - the OP obviously found a rare proactive person there, which is good to hear.

  Yes. Its obviously wrong. And there are two EPCs obviously wrong from their assessor.

ComicGeek said:

It is good that the accreditation body is responding to this as they would see very quickly that it was very suspect - the OP obviously found a rare proactive person there, which is good to hear.

Oh believe me, they were in no rush. They admitted something was wrong on phone, said we should contact the assessor, then still needed some official complaint form filled in (which did not work) then eventually confirmed an email complaint was received, then said will reply by last week Weds, then did not, then said sorry but can confirm the EPC has "been selected for an audit", then need another 7 days for the assessor to submit details, then need another 2 weeks to review it...??? The CEO was cc: into the emails and defy silence

... my issue is that the EPC is published as valid during this time, I am looking for ways to change this and I assume the only route is the BEIS or DLHC?. 

 

TheJP

adviseforumthanks said:

ComicGeek said:

Even if the owners have installed new insulation, the new EPC has used the incorrect entry for this. The fact that suddenly the walls and floor are 'assumed' to have insulation as built means that 100% the wrong build date has been used. Very obvious to anyone who produces or audits EPCs, I could see this in a few seconds from looking at the information. I'm not able to judge what the correct EPC rating should be, I can only tell you 100% that the new EPC has been entered incorrectly - whether it's been done on purpose or through a series of errors, the annual heating requirement has been massively reduced as a result. There is a very small margin of error allowed on audits, so this will fail by a mile.

It is good that the accreditation body is responding to this as they would see very quickly that it was very suspect - the OP obviously found a rare proactive person there, which is good to hear.

  Yes. Its obviously wrong. And there are two EPCs obviously wrong from their assessor.

ComicGeek said:

It is good that the accreditation body is responding to this as they would see very quickly that it was very suspect - the OP obviously found a rare proactive person there, which is good to hear.

Oh believe me, they were in no rush. They admitted something was wrong on phone, said we should contact the assessor, then still needed some official complaint form filled in (which did not work) then eventually confirmed an email complaint was received, then said will reply by last week Weds, then did not, then said sorry but can confirm the EPC has "been selected for an audit", then need another 7 days for the assessor to submit details, then need another 2 weeks to review it...??? The CEO was cc: into the emails and defy silence

... my issue is that the EPC is published as valid during this time, I am looking for ways to change this and I assume the only route is the BEIS or DLHC?. 

 

Until the EPC has been investigated and concluded that it was falsified why should it be deemed invalid. That axe sure is getting sharp by now.

Section62

jonesey1985 said:

I'm fully aware of what being relieved of ones property means.  I don't need an English lesson, thanks

It was a deliberate choice of words, given the OP is trying to force the landlord to sell their property because they don't like it being a rental property.

As I said, the landlord wouldn't be "relieved of their property" if it turns out the new EPC is wrong (which it increasingly appears to be)

If the EPC is wrong, and the property reassessed at a lower rating then the landlord has four distinct options:

1) To invest in energy efficiency improvements to improve the rating.

2) To apply for an exemption.

3) To live in the property themselves, not rent it out.

4) To sell the property with the same/similar EPC rating as it had when they purchased it.

In only one of those cases would the landlord be selling the property - and if they did so it would be a business decision (choice) rather than being forced to by the OP.

You perceive the OP's motive to be trying to force the landlord to sell, but there is scant evidence of that (ironic in a thread where people are getting agitated by the lack of evidence/facts put forward by the OP).

As a tactic it would also be flawed as the landlord has other (potentially much easier) options rather than selling.

Moreover, the landlord would be in no different place to any other landlord who owns a low-rated property and wants to rent it out.  Why would you (or anyone) believe this landlord should be able to profit (at the tenant's expense) from an EPC which was inaccurate?

jonesey1985 said:

They have no reason to believe the EPC has been falsified.  A report from another occupant with an axe to grind doesn't create a reasonable belief.

The wording is "reason to believe may" not "reasonable belief".

Whether or not the belief is reasonable would be for the EA to determine, having acted on the information they were given and the further enquiries they make.

Section62

TheJP said:

ComicGeek said:

It is good that the accreditation body is responding to this as they would see very quickly that it was very suspect - the OP obviously found a rare proactive person there, which is good to hear.

Oh believe me, they were in no rush. They admitted something was wrong on phone, said we should contact the assessor, then still needed some official complaint form filled in (which did not work) then eventually confirmed an email complaint was received, then said will reply by last week Weds, then did not, then said sorry but can confirm the EPC has "been selected for an audit", then need another 7 days for the assessor to submit details, then need another 2 weeks to review it...??? The CEO was cc: into the emails and defy silence

... my issue is that the EPC is published as valid during this time, I am looking for ways to change this and I assume the only route is the BEIS or DLHC?. 

 

Until the EPC has been investigated and concluded that it was falsified why should it be deemed invalid.

It isn't about it being "concluded" that it was "falsified".

According to ComicGeek (who I believe can be trusted to speak with authority on the issue) there is little doubt the new EPC is wrong.

Understanding how it came to be wrong requires investigation.  But that should be a parallel exercise to dealing with the effects of the error.

The OP is making a very valid point that where an EPC can be quickly and clearly seen to be wrong there should be a process in place where the assessor or accreditation body can rapidly cancel/void/qualify the EPC so that a person relying on it to make a (financial) decision is not misled by inaccurate information.

I would suggest that if white goods like a fridge or washing machine were found to have an incorrect energy efficiency label there would be a rapid instruction to retailers to take that item off sale.  That action wouldn't be delayed whilst someone worked out how the error had happened and concluded whether or not it was deliberate.

Why should the situation be any different with a property?

adviseforumthanks

Yes, am perfectly happy if landlord insulates or applies of exemptions.

Just seems obvious flaw to continue advertising something as correct by a government regulated "accreditation centre" when they have indicated it can't be right. 

If the BEIS or DLUHC are impossible to contact then I assume the only remediation (?) is with the EA's and their legal requirements under  the - Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008? (if have been told something is wrong, they have to investigate and do something). Currently they are not doing anything.  

...unless I am missing something?

Robbo66

adviseforumthanks said:

Yes, am perfectly happy if landlord insulates or applies of exemptions.

Just seems obvious flaw to continue advertising something as correct by a government regulated "accreditation centre" when they have indicated it can't be right. 

If the BEIS or DLUHC are impossible to contact then I assume the only remediation (?) is with the EA's and their legal requirements under  the - Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008? (if have been told something is wrong, they have to investigate and do something). Currently they are not doing anything.  

...unless I am missing something?

Until the relevant body has investigated and ruled upon their finding they don't have to do anything as currently there is only a suspicion that the EPC is incorrect being raised by a random member of the public.