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

ComicGeek

adviseforumthanks said:

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? 

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?

At the moment the accreditation body has had a random complaint from a random member of the public. It would be highly inappropriate for the EPC to be voided before the review is complete.

The audit requires the assessor to submit all evidence within 15 working days, and then the accreditation body reviews it all. If it's incorrect, then the EPC needs to be redone and re lodged within 10 working days. It's fair that this is investigated thoroughly, as it really affects the assessor's livelihood - IF they have made a mistake then they should be given the opportunity to correct it. If the audit it failed, then the assessor will get a higher percentage of audits moving forward.

Frankly I'm amazed that the accreditation body has launched an investigation on the basis of your phone call, but all credit to them. I'm not sure how they can require the assessor to respond to them quicker than the timescales noted above, those are set in the regulations.

I wouldn't get too worried about future EPC bandings - it's likely that the format of EPCs will change at the same time as any further change in minimum ratings. EPCs are currently based on cost rather than environmental impact, the carbon emission rates for electricity is way out of date, and gas price increases will also need to be incorporated as those haven't been changed for many, many years. Any tweaking to correct this is likely to push a lot of gas heated properties down the ratings, so a fundamental change to the overall calculation is needed.

Section62

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.

Section62

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.

Section62

ComicGeek said:

Frankly I'm amazed that the accreditation body has launched an investigation on the basis of your phone call, but all credit to them.

Both you and I quickly came to the conclusion one of the two EPCs is fundamentally wrong just from the OP's comments and by looking at them side by side.

I would have been amazed if the accreditation body didn't see this as something they need to look into PDQ, before the OP took it to a higher level.  Private-sector regulators caught sitting on their hands playing wise monkeys don't often get to continue being regulators.

adviseforumthanks

Section62 said:

Both you and I quickly came to the conclusion one of the two EPCs is fundamentally wrong just from the OP's comments and by looking at them side by side.I would have been amazed if the accreditation body didn't see this as something they need to look into PDQ, before the OP took it to a higher level.  Private-sector regulators caught sitting on their hands playing wise monkeys don't often get to continue being regulators.

Yes, the conversation with the EPC scheme resulted in them asking for me to make a complaint as something was not right. They seemed to have reached out to the assessor as got a hostile response from him, probs as unhappy with complaint to his scheme. 

There were two homes in one building, both were graded C by the same assessor in Aug and Oct 2021. One was a G previously (posted) and the other was an F (graded in Mar-2019)

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.
 

anselld

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.

Section62

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.

The previous EPCs patently are evidence.

And prima facie, they do suggest something is wrong.

(prima facie = "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise")


What they don't do is prove anything, without further evidence being obtained.

That would be part of the function of an investigation/audit.


The question should be what happens to the EPCs pending completion of that investigation/audit.

If the EPCs were employees they might be suspended (from work)...  but should that apply to an EPC which is being investigated/audited?

anselld

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.

fewcloudy

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🤷🏼‍♂️

Section62

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.

I think there is a logical fallacy in there^ somewhere.

We would expect variations (either up or down) between EPC assessments of the same property over time.  There is nothing "suspect" about that per se.

But if you were tasked with auditing a batch of EPC assessments your attention might be drawn to those showing the largest variation over a short period of time, and perhaps particularly those which are also listed buildings where you know that significant changes to the structure are less easy to achieve.

Coupled with the only apparent change being lightbulbs, and where assumptions have necessarily been made about the structure, then if that wouldn't make you slightly suspicious, what would?

Would you assume that every EPC must be 100% legit because you are expecting to see improvements from one assessment to the next?

anselld said:

The only suspicion has originated from the OP and they have not stated any evidence to support the suspicion.

There are at least two posters here who have looked at the "evidence" the OP has provided and expressed a view that there might be something to this. (although not 'what')

The accreditation body (we are told, admittedly by the same source) has apparently also heard the claims and felt it worthy of investigating.

I'm wondering what additional evidence you are requiring from the OP?  And why?