Why are the UK grants prioritised at home owners?

Chrysalis

In my area.

If you are a live in home owner.
Boiler upgrade, Loft insulation, Wall insulation, Heat pumps, Not means tested

If you are a private tenant
Get a boiler or storage heaters if dont have existing boiler, Means tested

Thats a huge difference in the grant system, seems its ideology driven, or is there some practical reason I am missing here?

Bradden

If you are a tenant the landlord should be paying for improvements.. as they are running a business why would tax payers fund this?

sammyjammy

Chrysalis said:

In my area.

If you are a live in home owner.
Boiler upgrade, Loft insulation, Wall insulation, Heat pumps, Not means tested

If you are a private tenant
Get a boiler or storage heaters if dont have existing boiler, Means tested

Thats a huge difference in the grant system, seems its ideology driven, or is there some practical reason I am missing here?

The bit in bold seems unlikely given the attitude of the current government.  Do you have a link to that? My neighbour has just had a new boiler fitted (by cowboys subcontracted by the council) and it was means tested, I would not qualify (or claim if I were).It seems unlikely

BJV

I think that must just be in your area as I am a home owner and I can not get any grant for anything unless I am claiming a form of benefit. ( sorry i have not looked into heat pumps as even with the grant I could not afford it ) 

Netexporter

I didn't think I was eligible for an ECO4 grant but they have relaxed the criteria where I am (Ceredigion) If your annual income is below £31,000 and you have an F or G EPC rating, then you may qualify for a heat pump, solar panels and additional insulation.

Chrysalis

Bradden said:

If you are a tenant the landlord should be paying for improvements.. as they are running a business why would tax payers fund this?

I was expecting this, so ideological.

However the same argument applies to home owners, as a home is an asset.

You dont think social needs override it?  People living in unhealthy conditions so you can sleep at night knowing a landlord isnt benefiting from it.

Chrysalis

sammyjammy said:

Chrysalis said:

In my area.

If you are a live in home owner.
Boiler upgrade, Loft insulation, Wall insulation, Heat pumps, Not means tested

If you are a private tenant
Get a boiler or storage heaters if dont have existing boiler, Means tested

Thats a huge difference in the grant system, seems its ideology driven, or is there some practical reason I am missing here?

The bit in bold seems unlikely given the attitude of the current government.  Do you have a link to that? My neighbour has just had a new boiler fitted (by cowboys subcontracted by the council) and it was means tested, I would not qualify (or claim if I were).It seems unlikely

Yeah sure.

https://www.ukheatgrants.co.uk/

Chrysalis

BJV said:

I think that must just be in your area as I am a home owner and I can not get any grant for anything unless I am claiming a form of benefit. ( sorry i have not looked into heat pumps as even with the grant I could not afford it ) 

Yeah there is some postcode lottery on it I think, as I understand it councils have some discretion.  Thats why I put in my area, especially as the leaflet we got said "in your area".

Bradden

Chrysalis said:

Bradden said:

If you are a tenant the landlord should be paying for improvements.. as they are running a business why would tax payers fund this?

I was expecting this, so ideological.

However the same argument applies to home owners, as a home is an asset.

You dont think social needs override it?  People living in unhealthy conditions so you can sleep at night knowing a landlord isnt benefiting from it.

In my view it's the landlords who should be paying to make the property they own (and profit from) healthy for their tenants to live in. I believe there is legislation to allow council to enforce this.

Home owners may not have the money to pay for it... which is why most of these schemes are means tested to target those least able to afford it.

Not sure what you mean by "idealogical".

Chrysalis

Bradden said:

Chrysalis said:

Bradden said:

If you are a tenant the landlord should be paying for improvements.. as they are running a business why would tax payers fund this?

I was expecting this, so ideological.

However the same argument applies to home owners, as a home is an asset.

You dont think social needs override it?  People living in unhealthy conditions so you can sleep at night knowing a landlord isnt benefiting from it.

In my view it's the landlords who should be paying to make the property they own (and profit from) healthy for their tenants to live in. I believe there is legislation to allow council to enforce this.

Home owners may not have the money to pay for it... which is why most of these schemes are means tested to target those least able to afford it.

Not sure what you mean by "idealogical".

What I mean by ideological is you putting what you think should be how its handled financially over the needs of keeping people warm.

Home owners profit from their home going up in value, if you think landlords should be paying from the improvements, then if you are consistent the same applies to live in home owners.  As a home is an asset the same that a business is an asset.

If you think home owners may not have the money to pay for it, what makes you think landlords (and especially tenants who would be paying for it via higher rents) do have the means?   Also its the tenant schemes that are much more tightly means tested.

Do you think its just a case of tough luck for being a tenant?  Or is there some other help you know is available?

dunstonh

Chrysalis said:

Bradden said:

If you are a tenant the landlord should be paying for improvements.. as they are running a business why would tax payers fund this?

I was expecting this, so ideological.

However the same argument applies to home owners, as a home is an asset.

You dont think social needs override it?  People living in unhealthy conditions so you can sleep at night knowing a landlord isnt benefiting from it.

There should be no social benefits to override it.   Landlords could just give slum living accommodation and get the tax payer to pay for upgrades otherwise.

If conditions are unhealthy then there are procedures to report this and your landlord should be taking action.