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

NameUnavailable

ComicGeek said:

The current EPC system does work when operated by experienced, knowledgeable assessors. There are clear conventions to follow, and plenty of guidance available. The whole point is that 2 assessors SHOULD be able to assess the same property and get exactly the same rating. There isn't any 'opinion' if done properly. 

It takes time to check all aspects of the building, including measuring thickness of external walls, looking for evidence of insulation, asking the owners for evidence of retrofits, looking up property records and planning consents to ascertain build age, taking all of the evidence photos, completing the site notes etc. 

However you can't do that for less than minimum wage, which is ultimately what the prices dropped down to. And that's without taking time to think and consider what you are including, and double checking key entries.

A surveyor can charge £400 to do a building survey (with lots of gaps for incoming services, heating, electrics etc that they don't cover) and no one questions it - the EPC should be at least be £200 to provide a high quality result, but no one is currently going to pay that as they don't see the value in it.

If someone is only being paid minimum wage, then they won't take time, and only use defaults. No time taken to reflect (which is actually a requirement within the regs).

Not defending it, just explaining (as an ex-RdSAP assessor) why it doesn't work in its current format.

When I had an EPC carried out the guy told me he did it as a sideline (think he was also a surveyor). He was there about 5 minutes and didn't ask me anything. As far as I was concerned it seemed an unecessary piece or red tape, but I wasn't aware of the issues with letting etc. then.

ComicGeek

NameUnavailable said:

ComicGeek said:

The current EPC system does work when operated by experienced, knowledgeable assessors. There are clear conventions to follow, and plenty of guidance available. The whole point is that 2 assessors SHOULD be able to assess the same property and get exactly the same rating. There isn't any 'opinion' if done properly. 

It takes time to check all aspects of the building, including measuring thickness of external walls, looking for evidence of insulation, asking the owners for evidence of retrofits, looking up property records and planning consents to ascertain build age, taking all of the evidence photos, completing the site notes etc. 

However you can't do that for less than minimum wage, which is ultimately what the prices dropped down to. And that's without taking time to think and consider what you are including, and double checking key entries.

A surveyor can charge £400 to do a building survey (with lots of gaps for incoming services, heating, electrics etc that they don't cover) and no one questions it - the EPC should be at least be £200 to provide a high quality result, but no one is currently going to pay that as they don't see the value in it.

If someone is only being paid minimum wage, then they won't take time, and only use defaults. No time taken to reflect (which is actually a requirement within the regs).

Not defending it, just explaining (as an ex-RdSAP assessor) why it doesn't work in its current format.

When I had an EPC carried out the guy told me he did it as a sideline (think he was also a surveyor). He was there about 5 minutes and didn't ask me anything. As far as I was concerned it seemed an unecessary piece or red tape, but I wasn't aware of the issues with letting etc. then.

And that's the problem - the EPC has virtually no purpose currently for the property seller, they just want the piece of paper for the lowest cost possible. 

It SHOULD be important for the purchaser, but as they're not paying for it themselves, and there's limited confidence in the quality of it, it just gets ignored.

Much better if the EPC was combined in with building surveys, paid for by the purchaser - the purchaser could then negotiate for necessary energy improvements at the same time as necessary repairs. That in turn may encourage sellers to undertake the work preemptively, or at least provide the advice to the purchasers to budget and undertake the works as soon as they move in. 

But then most surveyors are completely ignorant about energy matters, in my experience.

Robbo66

You keep saying the new EPCs were falsified but haven't provided any proof that they are. You are also making the assumption that the original EPC is correct but it could be the other way round and the new one really does reflect the actual rating as the first one had incorrect info added to the system to generate the rating.

The EPC rating is system generated and the actual assessment is a tick box exercise with a lot of assumptions made but even if the correct rating of G is correct the owner can apply for an exemption stating that the building is listed and the recommended improvements would alter the look of the building thus contravening the Listing.

Section62

Robbo66 said:

The EPC rating is system generated and the actual assessment is a tick box exercise with a lot of assumptions made but even if the correct rating of G is correct the owner can apply for an exemption stating that the building is listed and the recommended improvements would alter the look of the building thus contravening the Listing.

I don't see anything here mentioning exemptions for listed buildings, although it could be buried somewhere in the smallprint I guess -
https://www.natwest.com/mortgages/mortgage-comparison/green-mortgages.html

The point is these letters are going to become increasingly important, with significant financial benefits coming to those who manage to get better ratings, however those better ratings are achieved.

It isn't very satisfactory to have a system where a property can jump from a 'G' to 'C' (albeit by 1 point) with (allegedly) no work being done to improve it, just a different set of assumptions made by an assessor.

ComicGeek

Section62 said:

Robbo66 said:

The EPC rating is system generated and the actual assessment is a tick box exercise with a lot of assumptions made but even if the correct rating of G is correct the owner can apply for an exemption stating that the building is listed and the recommended improvements would alter the look of the building thus contravening the Listing.

I don't see anything here mentioning exemptions for listed buildings, although it could be buried somewhere in the smallprint I guess -
https://www.natwest.com/mortgages/mortgage-comparison/green-mortgages.html

The point is these letters are going to become increasingly important, with significant financial benefits coming to those who manage to get better ratings, however those better ratings are achieved.

It isn't very satisfactory to have a system where a property can jump from a 'G' to 'C' (albeit by 1 point) with (allegedly) no work being done to improve it, just a different set of assumptions made by an assessor.

The listed building exemption is not connected to green mortgages - it's only where properties achieve F/G ratings and therefore don't meet the minimum EPC requirements for renting out. Quite simple process to register them, but requires regular review as registration doesn't last for the 10 years of a normal EPC.

It's pretty clear to me that one of those 2 EPCs is fundamentally wrong (my money's on the more recent one), so not the system that's at fault, just the assessor. Hopefully it will get audited and then it will have to be corrected - the accreditation body does have the power to either accompany the original assessor on the site survey or visit and produce one themselves if there are serious issues.

Section62

ComicGeek said:

The listed building exemption is not connected to green mortgages - it's only where properties achieve F/G ratings and therefore don't meet the minimum EPC requirements for renting out. Quite simple process to register them, but requires regular review as registration doesn't last for the 10 years of a normal EPC.

I was aware of that. That was my point - that the ability to get an exemption in certain circumstances doesn't make this problem go away.

The rental aspect of EPC's isn't the only thing, and IMV isn't the most important one.  More property transactions involve mortgages than involve BTL.

ComicGeek said:

It's pretty clear to me that one of those 2 EPCs is fundamentally wrong (my money's on the more recent one), so not the system that's at fault, just the assessor. Hopefully it will get audited and then it will have to be corrected - the accreditation body does have the power to either accompany the original assessor on the site survey or visit and produce one themselves if there are serious issues.

Agreed.

Although the audit (if it happens) will only happen as a result of an (apparently) unconnected third-party making a complaint.  In normal circumstances it wouldn't be in the interests of either the vendor or buyer to 'rock the boat' and challenge a dubious EPC.

Who is going to pay for the cost of proper regulation and a sufficient percentage of random (and independent) auditing to make sure consumers and financial institutions can rely on the quality/value of the assessment?

I also agree with your view that the EPC should really be commissioned by the buyer.  But as we have would-be buyers coming to this forum complaining about their surveyor finding problems that affect mortgageability, I suspect we'd end up with buyers complaining their EPC assessment is too poor and how can they appeal the rating.

ComicGeek

Section62 said:

Although the audit (if it happens) will only happen as a result of an (apparently) unconnected third-party making a complaint.  In normal circumstances it wouldn't be in the interests of either the vendor or buyer to 'rock the boat' and challenge a dubious EPC.

Who is going to pay for the cost of proper regulation and a sufficient percentage of random (and independent) auditing to make sure consumers and financial institutions can rely on the quality/value of the assessment?

All assessors have regular random audits, and these are taken very seriously by the accreditation bodies - I probably spend about 5% of my hours dealing with audits and continuous professional development.

They can't audit 100% of the EPCs though, and there will always be assessors who get things wrong or make mistakes. Ultimately all assessors have to have professional indemnity insurance, so there is redress if mistakes are made. I don't see that this is any different to any other regulated industry where people have to rely on the quality of assessments.

adviseforumthanks

ComicGeek said:

It's pretty clear to me that one of those 2 EPCs is fundamentally wrong (my money's on the more recent one), so not the system that's at fault, just the assessor. Hopefully it will get audited and then it will have to be corrected - the accreditation body does have the power to either accompany the original assessor on the site survey or visit and produce one themselves if there are serious issues.

Yes, the new EPC seems to assume insulated walls and floors which is not possible. The new EPC does indicated high-retention heaters controls (so maybe heaters been upgraded) which the old one says would only bring it to a level E if accompanied by insulation on walls, floors and in room-in-roof - not to a C... anyways we know the new EPC does not seem right as the accreditation company is saying so - just they are seem to be dithering about it. 

I would thought they would immediately void the suspicious EPCs, pending their review to ensure no ramifications to agents, landlords or tenants. Seems like the right thing to do. 

adviseforumthanks

I understand these are some of the EPC scheme operators?...
Elmhurst, Stroma, ECMK Ltd, Quidos, Sterling Accreditation, CIBSE

I heard they get audited twice yearly? Is it the DLHC or BEIS Gov department that does this?

Does anyone know how I could find a contact within the Gov department that does the auditing that I could flag concerns too about a scheme not acting quickly and appropriately. 

Robbo66

Section62 said:

Robbo66 said:

The EPC rating is system generated and the actual assessment is a tick box exercise with a lot of assumptions made but even if the correct rating of G is correct the owner can apply for an exemption stating that the building is listed and the recommended improvements would alter the look of the building thus contravening the Listing.

I don't see anything here mentioning exemptions for listed buildings, although it could be buried somewhere in the smallprint I guess -
https://www.natwest.com/mortgages/mortgage-comparison/green-mortgages.html

The point is these letters are going to become increasingly important, with significant financial benefits coming to those who manage to get better ratings, however those better ratings are achieved.

It isn't very satisfactory to have a system where a property can jump from a 'G' to 'C' (albeit by 1 point) with (allegedly) no work being done to improve it, just a different set of assumptions made by an assessor.

I didnt say listed buildings are exempt i said owners could apply for an exemption.