Why do people do this?

RHemmings

House with a moderate amount of insulation in the loft and cavity wall, it's a D but only slightly below a C, but ... no energy efficient lighting. 



This EPC must be from 2014, as it expires in 2024. Maybe times have changed since then, but I couldn't imagine having an EPC done on a house without immediately making sure every single light bulb is low energy. 

Reed_Richards

But that was then and this is now. 

The house I bought in 2018 had a mix of LEDs and the old filament bulbs.  The LEDs weren't very attractive, newer ones look a lot better.

MultiFuelBurner

Run out of money

The EPC is of no concern to the owners like it isn't a concern for 90% of the population

They can easily afford their electricity bill

They hate the light that LEDs produce


You wil probably have to ask them?

The EPC means nothing comments will follow soon.

RHemmings

The EPC is one of the first things I look at. But, it's clear that even now many people don't. I'm aware that it is of limited accuracy. But, saying that, for a few quid isn't it still worth getting a better rating? (I won't be disagreeing with anyone who says 'no', and will note opinions.)

I've been told by lots of people that I'll need money to redecorate once I move into a new house to 'make it my own'. My thought is '<rude word> redecoration, how can I make this property more energy efficient?' But, that's me. My 'dream house': Scandinavian levels of insulation and energy efficiency.

I've seen mentions that the standards for EPCs have changed over the years, and while it might seem like an easy win to add low energy lighting in all sockets and get a new EPC, have there been other changes that might mean that the property wouldn't get rated higher overall? 

I've just checked and it seems that compact fluorescent counts as low energy lighting. Which is an alternative for anyone who doesn't want LEDs. LED lighting is fine for me, but I tend to go for warm white rather than anything too blue. If I hated low energy lighting, but I had an EPC booked, I might put in low energy lighting, get the EPC done, and take it out again. Or just leave them in during the whole sale process. 

I suspect it will be the owner who will be showing me around this property. And, I think that by now there will be low energy lighting. 

When I got rid of all my remaining incandescent bulbs a few weeks ago, I put them on a local Freecycle group. And, someone drove across the city to come over and pick up about 10 bulbs of various sorts. So, I understand that there are people who strongly prefer them. 

Grumpy_chap

RHemmings said:

I couldn't imagine having an EPC done on a house without immediately making sure every single light bulb is low energy. 

That, in a way, shows the futility of the rating.
If someone is selling a house and thinks it will make a difference they can install new lightbulbs to gain the better rating, but then might swap those bulbs back out so the new purchasers are not getting the "C" property but the "D" property.
I suspect most property owners and most property buyers are not that fussed about the EPC rating.  On old properties, only so much can be done.  Those that are concerned will see that "D" report and the easy wins, so take that into account in their assessment that they'll be buying new light bulbs.

I have only installed low energy bulbs for a good number of years now.  I am making the change on a natural cycle, i.e. blown bulbs are changed to low energy.  I still have a good number of filament bulbs through the house.  Given the bulbs have not reached end of life, these bulbs clearly can't be using much energy.

In fact, only this weekend, I realised the bulb had failed in the outdoor security spotlight so I grabbed the old bulb and went out to buy new.  Visited four DIY stores before realising that this type of bulb really is not available and there is no equivalent low energy replacement.  So that has used up energy doing a drive and, now that I can't get a bulb, the whole light fitting needs changing.  What should have been a quick £2 job to swap the bulb will now be a £25 light fitting plus effort to remove the old fitting and install the new one.  All a far bigger job.

I wonder whether there will ever be an energy or cost payback on that change of light fitting?  I installed the fitting when I moved into the house in 1999 and it came with a bulb.  When the bulb failed, I purchased a two-pack.  The second of those failed this week.  That's three bulbs in 24 years.  Now, to save some of that energy when the bulb is on, requires the embedded energy of a whole new fitting.  
How many bulb-lives of reduced energy are required to break-even?

ArbitraryRandom

Selling a house is stressful - so not thinking about running around replacing bulbs when you're clearing/packing is understandable. 

Or it could be a probate property. I see them reasonably often with a lot of work having been done via various grants and anything not covered not done/the family not wanting to do any work to sell. 

And worth remembering that back in 2014 energy saving bulbs weren't 'a few quid', they were nearly £5 each - depending on the value of the house/area and number of fittings they could be quite an expensive investment. Plus they used to be quite slow to warm up and quite 'yellow', so perhaps they were worried more about the photos being good? 

J63320

When I was house-hunting 3 years ago, I was taking notice of the EPCs of properties I was interested in - until the assessor came to do mine. He was in the house - a six- bedroomed Victorian semi with converted cellars - for all of 15 minutes. I’d pulled down the loft ladder so he could go up and see the insulation, but he didn’t bother, he just took my word for it. Part of the house had cavity walls, which had been insulated, but he was going to assume there wasn’t any CWI until I showed him the guarantee. And he certainly never counted the light fittings, because he didn’t go into every room, so the percentage figure he came up with was a figment of his imagination.

FreeBear

Grumpy_chap said:

RHemmings said:

I couldn't imagine having an EPC done on a house without immediately making sure every single light bulb is low energy. 

If someone is selling a house and thinks it will make a difference they can install new lightbulbs to gain the better rating, but then might swap those bulbs back out so the new purchasers are not getting the "C" property but the "D" property.

Swapping all the bulbs out for LED ones will only improve your score by a point or two, so is unlikely to get you from a D to a C unless you are at 68. The areas that will make the biggest difference to the EPC score are also big ticket items (wall/floor insulation, windows/doors, heating system, etc).

RHemmings

Thanks to everyone who replied on this thread. @Reed_Richards, @MultiFuelBurner, @Grumpy_chap. EDIT: And more - thanks to the people who posted while I was (slowly) writing this. 

I agree that low energy lighting is a poor way to evaluate the energy efficiency of a house. It would be like having a tick-box for whether the fridge door has been left open or not, that adds significant points. I also will see the D report and consider that low energy lighting is an easy win. 

In the house the EPC came from, I believe that there is now LED lighting from a cursory inspection. However, while I said about that I wasn't fussy about decoration, there are limits. This house is way, way, past my limits, and I made my excuses and left. I don't want to go off-topic in the energy forum, so stop there.

Though, I meant this thread to be a general discussion (thanks for that), not about a specific house. 

EDIT: I will reply further in this thread when back from B&Q, The house the EPC is from is rated as a 66. There is a family living in it. 

QrizB

I suspect that, for many (most?) people, an EPC is just another bit of paperwork that's required when buying, selling or renting a house. They pay their £70, look at it once, think "that's nice" and forget about it until they next want to buy, sell or rent.

Full disclosure: I last bought a house in the mid-2000s and don't have an EPC. I occasionally get curious enough to Google EPC suppliers but honestly can't be bothered with having someone visit my house, tell me things I already know and assign an arbitrary number.

I know how much energy my home uses, where it goes and what it costs. I have a mental list of energy saving improvements that I could make, I know what they would cost and roughly how long it would take for them to pay back.

Sea_Shell

It seems daft to me to rate a house on a "consumable" item, that can easily be removed and or replaced.

I realise most people leave lightbulbs behind in "fixed" lighting, but it's hardly the same as windows or the boiler etc.