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

Section62

Robbo66 said:

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.

That wasn't my point.  But I have no issue in rephrasing to avoid any concerns about accuracy -

"I don't see anything here mentioning applications for 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"

Section62

adviseforumthanks said:

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. 

I was looking for some Government statistics on EPC auditing (didn't find any) and found this -

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1028741/EPB_Cert_Statistics_Release_Q3_2021.pdf


There is a named contact and email address who might be able to point you in the right direction.  It might also be worth asking whether there is statistical information on auditing of EPCs, the number of complaints, and the speed with which (allegedly) inaccurate EPCs get removed/withdrawn.

Robbo66

Section62 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

That wasn't my point.  But I have no issue in rephrasing to avoid any concerns about accuracy -

"I don't see anything here mentioning applications for 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"

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/saving-energy/energy-performance-regulations/

From January 2013 there has been an ‘exemption’ for listed buildings.

However, the exemption is qualified, it states: “Insofar as compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would unacceptably alter their character or appearance”.

What does this qualification mean?

The qualification covers works that might be carried out to the property to improve its energy performance. These are works that would require consent under Part L of the building regulations (The Conservation of Fuel and Power) and would be included in the recommendations section of an EPC report if one was obtained. If such works would unacceptably alter the building’s character or appearance, then the listed building would qualify for an exemption.

The qualification does not relate to meeting the minimum energy efficiency requirements (MEES) set out in the Private Rented Sector Regulations(opens in a new window) (2015).

ComicGeek

adviseforumthanks said:

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. 

That's not how it works. 

The scheme operators (accreditation bodies) audit their assessors. They in turn get audited to ensure that they are following the rules correctly.

The accreditation bodies have no duty to act quickly to random complaints from people who have no association with the property in question, even if those complaints MAY be valid. Each assessor has to operate a formal complaints procedure (but again I don't see how that would be triggered by a random complaint by a member of the public) - only when that complaints process has been exhausted would the accreditation body step in.

IF during an audit the EPC is found to be incorrect, the assessor is instructed to redo and relodge that EPC within a set number of days - the previous incorrect EPC is then removed from the register. If the assessor fails to do this within the time scale they are automatically suspended, and further disciplinary action may be taken. Depending upon the audit findings, and any previous issues, the assessor may be required to undertake further training before they lodge any more EPCs.

But I still don't think the accreditation body will take action to investigate it from a random comment. Could someone you know view the property, and then follow up with a complaint on the basis that it's not correct? 

Section62

Robbo66 said:

Section62 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

That wasn't my point.  But I have no issue in rephrasing to avoid any concerns about accuracy -

"I don't see anything here mentioning applications for 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"

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/saving-energy/energy-performance-regulations/

From January 2013 there has been an ‘exemption’ for listed buildings.

However, the exemption is qualified, it states: “Insofar as compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would unacceptably alter their character or appearance”.

What does this qualification mean?

The qualification covers works that might be carried out to the property to improve its energy performance. These are works that would require consent under Part L of the building regulations (The Conservation of Fuel and Power) and would be included in the recommendations section of an EPC report if one was obtained. If such works would unacceptably alter the building’s character or appearance, then the listed building would qualify for an exemption.

The qualification does not relate to meeting the minimum energy efficiency requirements (MEES) set out in the Private Rented Sector Regulations(opens in a new window) (2015).

We're talking at cross purposes.

You identified a specific case (rentals) where an exemption is possible (but didn't make it explicit that the exemption is in relation to rentals only)

I gave an example of a different case (mortgages) where that kind of exemption is not made available just because the property is listed.

I'm sure there will be other cases. If not yet currently existing, then they will emerge in due course.

In case of doubt, I'm not in any way suggesting or implying that the information in your latest post is not true. Nor have I ever done.

adviseforumthanks

Section62 said:

I was looking for some Government statistics on EPC auditing (didn't find any) and found this -
There is a named contact and email address who might be able to point you in the right direction.  It might also be worth asking whether there is statistical information on auditing of EPCs, the number of complaints, and the speed with which (allegedly) inaccurate EPCs get removed/withdrawn.

Hey thanks for this, suspect they will just be doing their stats job at the big London gov office and wonder who is this pesky public member contacting me - but can try. 

I understand that the scheme is managed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCL) now called Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLHC). I understand that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) look after EPCs in the rental sector though - not sure I understand the split? but I believe there is an EPC team buried away in one or both of those organisations. 

They must have put some rule book down somewhere on how these schemes should operate and what regulates them. I am hoping there is some accountability in the system, other than the occasional audit that is undertaken? Surely if there is a team there, they would want some scheme feedback as if the scheme isn't acting right, they are reliant on the schemes to their job in order to ensure the 1000's of assessors they manage are doing the right thing?

adviseforumthanks

ComicGeek said:

That's not how it works. The scheme operators (accreditation bodies) audit their assessors. They in turn get audited to ensure that they are following the rules correctly.

The accreditation bodies have no duty to act quickly to random complaints from people who have no association with the property in question, even if those complaints MAY be valid. Each assessor has to operate a formal complaints procedure (but again I don't see how that would be triggered by a random complaint by a member of the public) - only when that complaints process has been exhausted would the accreditation body step in.

IF during an audit the EPC is found to be incorrect, the assessor is instructed to redo and relodge that EPC within a set number of days - the previous incorrect EPC is then removed from the register. If the assessor fails to do this within the time scale they are automatically suspended, and further disciplinary action may be taken. Depending upon the audit findings, and any previous issues, the assessor may be required to undertake further training before they lodge any more EPCs.

But I still don't think the accreditation body will take action to investigate it from a random comment. Could someone you know view the property, and then follow up with a complaint on the basis that it's not correct? 

Yes, is how I broadly understand it - but didn't realise they should be instructing the assessor to redo it?

They are investigating as after an intial chat with one of their agents it was obvious that something was wrong with the EPC. Their handling of the complaint was to ask to go back to the assessor (nothing about them telling the assessor to re-do it) - course the assessor was not interested and insulting, so then went back to the scheme and they asked for formal complaint - their complaint form wasn't working so then sent in formal email and eventually they said they would look into it after delays.  

Maybe, as there was two dodgy EPC done around the same time they figured they should do something. Anyhow, they want another 7 days for the assessor to submit evidence and then a further 14 days to review it all (when they know something is wrong already). 

I am counting this will all take 6 weeks from the time of the original complaining call and in the meantime there is suspect EPCs (I'm sure they are plain falsified) sitting on the register permitting Estate Agents and Landlords to illegally rent out properties based on incorrect docs to unsuspecting people for profit. Can't be right?

Maybe I should just ask them to get the assessor back in (to mark his own homework) as will be quicker? These EPC seem more and more critical to housing transactions (2025 you need a "C" rating to rent), surely if they are suspect they should be voided pending a review - or the old ones relodged, or something, not do nothing whilst investigating?

Section62

adviseforumthanks said:

They must have put some rule book down somewhere on how these schemes should operate and what regulates them. I am hoping there is some accountability in the system, other than the occasional audit that is undertaken? Surely if there is a team there, they would want some scheme feedback as if the scheme isn't acting right, they are reliant on the schemes to their job in order to ensure the 1000's of assessors they manage are doing the right thing?

Quite - which is why I think the contact I suggested might be a good place to start.  It is something of a failure for a statistical report on the numbers of EPCs and the ratings given not to include something about compliance with the rules, auditing, and the percentage of EPCs audited which were found to be incorrect.  Or at the very least to point the reader to where that information can be found.

I'd be slightly more optimistic that an enquiry to that department might be received positively.

adviseforumthanks

adviseforumthanks said:
Maybe I should just ask them to get the assessor back in (to mark his own homework) as will be quicker? These EPC seem more and more critical to housing transactions (2025 you need a "C" rating to rent), surely if they are suspect they should be voided pending a review - or the old ones relodged, or something, not do nothing whilst investigating?

Also was wondering if this is actually good for the Landlord? If the EPC is found to be incorrect, and tenants are put into situ, does that create long term issues? E.g. if deposits are not registered with TDS future Section 21 notices can be invalidated - is this the same with dodgy or voided EPC's - could it invalidate landlord notices or create any other issues? 

fewcloudy

adviseforumthanks said:

adviseforumthanks said:
Maybe I should just ask them to get the assessor back in (to mark his own homework) as will be quicker? These EPC seem more and more critical to housing transactions (2025 you need a "C" rating to rent), surely if they are suspect they should be voided pending a review - or the old ones relodged, or something, not do nothing whilst investigating?

Also was wondering if this is actually good for the Landlord? If the EPC is found to be incorrect, and tenants are put into situ, does that create long term issues? E.g. if deposits are not registered with TDS future Section 21 notices can be invalidated - is this the same with dodgy or voided EPC's - could it invalidate landlord notices or create any other issues? 

You may not mean to, but you actually sound quite desperate for ill-fortune of some type or another to befall the owner/landlord of this property, that you have no apparent interest/involvement in (apart from thinking that they’d make “a nice family home” rather than presumably being rented out to a nice family, to be their home?