EPC Rating D?

trdlo09

BarelySentientAI said:

A standard suggestion - if the property doesn't have them it almost always gets listed.

What do you mean? I thought only historical properties get listed? 

user1977

trdlo09 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A standard suggestion - if the property doesn't have them it almost always gets listed.

What do you mean? I thought only historical properties get listed? 

"Installing solar panels" gets listed as a recommendation on the EPC...

trdlo09

user1977 said:

trdlo09 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A standard suggestion - if the property doesn't have them it almost always gets listed.

What do you mean? I thought only historical properties get listed? 

"Installing solar panels" gets listed as a recommendation on the EPC...

Ah! I'm with you now - sorry, being panicking about the listed properties and my mind went there directly   
Also, it's not on the EPC report of the house I'm currently in. 
So it will basically appear on almost every report and not specifically where research has been carried out and the property is well fit for easy installation. Gotcha, thanks! 

chanz4

another thing i was told is new builds when built get scored higher as the assesment is different

badger09

chanz4 said:

another thing i was told is new builds when built get scored higher as the assesment is different

New Builds will get higher rating as they have to be built to current insulation/energy saving requirements. I have no idea what they are, but for example, a local respected developer installs the following: Air source heat pump, solar panels, GF underfloor heating & EV charging points. 2 bed semis, currently below £240k, so not just large expensive houses. 

ComicGeek

chanz4 said:

another thing i was told is new builds when built get scored higher as the assesment is different

The assessment for new builds is more accurate as you knew exactly how everything is built. Sometimes that means it gets a better rating but not always. What is frustrating is that this detailed information (where every material is calculated and every junction included) is then discarded and only defaults/assumptions used for later EPC revisions - all of this information could be stored within the Government's EPC database and then just checked for any obvious changes in the next EPC survey.

A new house built today may actually get a worse EPC rating than a new house built 5 years ago, as the changes in Building Regulations hasn't necessarily resulted in lower energy bills. 

ThisIsWeird

A perfectly normal EPC report.
And, since it has solid floors, there are unlikely to be any skirting or floorboards draughts, which I have found to be the single biggest cause of heat loss in a couple of homes.
An additional thin layer of insulation can be added to the floor if/when you need to change the floor coverings. Although thin in the normal respects of 'insulation', the floor area of a room tends to be the least warm in any case, so heat losses that way are usually less than through walls, windows and ceilings.
As said by others, the actual EPC rating has a sizeable arbitrary element to it, and I bet no consideration is made for actual 'draughts', for example, which can suck heat out and make a home very hard to heat. 
So, view them all, and read all the reports. And then use your judgement!

Agog

Here's some insight I thought worth sharing. This is purely my own opinion and I have no intention of responding to other's views.

I received an EPC yesterday that gave a D rating. 

The property itself has a 5kW Solar PV system, Zoned Underfloor heating throughout with individual thermometer/controller for each zone.

The recommend steps to improve energy efficiency are as follows:

1. Floor insulation (solid floor) with typical installation cost of £4,000 - £6,000 resulting in an annual saving of £64;

2. Heating controls (zone control) with typical installation cost of £350 - £450 resulting in an annual saving of £132;

3. Condensing boiler with typical installation cost of £2,200 - £3,000 resulting in an annual saving of £282;

4. Solar water heating with typical installation cost of £4,000 - £6,000 resulting in an annual saving of £90;

5. Solar photovoltaic panels  with typical installation cost £3,500 - £5,500 resulting in an annual saving of £535.

Just considering a few options then asuming least cost case and the full projected saving:

Step 1 would pay back in approximately 62 years time;

Step 3 would pay back in approximately 8 years time;

Step 4 reaching a pay back time in approximately 44 years.

Step 5 offers the best break-even-point approaching 7 years.

Given the responses from other commentators perhaps these steps are simply embedded in the document template and not considered when the certificate is produced!

Implementing Option 2 and 5 first might be best value although I already have these capabilities which begs the question 'why were they discounted in the surveyor's analysis?' The recommendations to save energy are utterly bizarre so the process seemingly achieves nothing of value for the property owner or the environment. I can only guess who the beneficiaries are! I conclude that EPCs are likely to be inaccurate, misleading and a bureaucratic cost of no valve to owners, buyers or sellers. 

 

appealandwin

Slinky said:

Go and have a look and make your own decision. In my experience EPCs can be a bit hit and miss. When you read them, the assessors often make a lot of 'assumptions'. Our house was assumed to have no cavity wall insulation, which it does for example.  Simple things like adding extra loft insulation can be done by anyone with a reasonable level of fitness/skill for not a huge amount of money.  Sometimes you can actually find a link to the EPC on the estate agent's website, other times it's just the letter. If you can read the EPC it will give you more info on where they think the shortfalls are.

Just a thing worth noting - when you see 'assumed' on an EPC, that's not the assessor making the assumption. That's the software making the assumption.

Assessors are not allowed to make any judgements, they are only there to collect data, and they have to be able to produce solid evidence of everything that they input into the software.

That means that if the wall has cavity insulation in it, they have to be able to see that insulation or see good evidence that it's there.
If they can't physically see the insulation, then they have to enter it as 'as built' in the software and the software will just assume the cavity is either filled or unfilled based on the age of the property.

If the assessor was to take the homeowner's word for it, and entered 'cavity wall insulation' in the survey, without any visible evidence, that they would fail their audit.

Bilivino

appealandwin said:

Slinky said:

Go and have a look and make your own decision. In my experience EPCs can be a bit hit and miss. When you read them, the assessors often make a lot of 'assumptions'. Our house was assumed to have no cavity wall insulation, which it does for example.  Simple things like adding extra loft insulation can be done by anyone with a reasonable level of fitness/skill for not a huge amount of money.  Sometimes you can actually find a link to the EPC on the estate agent's website, other times it's just the letter. If you can read the EPC it will give you more info on where they think the shortfalls are.

Just a thing worth noting - when you see 'assumed' on an EPC, that's not the assessor making the assumption. That's the software making the assumption.

Assessors are not allowed to make any judgements, they are only there to collect data, and they have to be able to produce solid evidence of everything that they input into the software.

That means that if the wall has cavity insulation in it, they have to be able to see that insulation or see good evidence that it's there.
If they can't physically see the insulation, then they have to enter it as 'as built' in the software and the software will just assume the cavity is either filled or unfilled based on the age of the property.

If the assessor was to take the homeowner's word for it, and entered 'cavity wall insulation' in the survey, without any visible evidence, that they would fail their audit.

appealandwin said:

Slinky said:

Go and have a look and make your own decision. In my experience EPCs can be a bit hit and miss. When you read them, the assessors often make a lot of 'assumptions'. Our house was assumed to have no cavity wall insulation, which it does for example.  Simple things like adding extra loft insulation can be done by anyone with a reasonable level of fitness/skill for not a huge amount of money.  Sometimes you can actually find a link to the EPC on the estate agent's website, other times it's just the letter. If you can read the EPC it will give you more info on where they think the shortfalls are.

Just a thing worth noting - when you see 'assumed' on an EPC, that's not the assessor making the assumption. That's the software making the assumption.

Assessors are not allowed to make any judgements, they are only there to collect data, and they have to be able to produce solid evidence of everything that they input into the software.

That means that if the wall has cavity insulation in it, they have to be able to see that insulation or see good evidence that it's there.
If they can't physically see the insulation, then they have to enter it as 'as built' in the software and the software will just assume the cavity is either filled or unfilled based on the age of the property.

If the assessor was to take the homeowner's word for it, and entered 'cavity wall insulation' in the survey, without any visible evidence, that they would fail their audit.

Absolutely spot on. Just also to clarify for others reading this that the insulation status of a cavity wall in an EPC assessment is either ‘As Built’, meaning it has not been changed since it was originally constructed, or ‘Filled Cavity’ meaning that cavity insulation has been RETROFITTED, ie fitted after the wall was originally constructed. Any ‘assumption’ indicated on the EPC features table comes down to the assigned construction date band for an ‘As Built’ wall. Recording a wall that was originally built with cavity fill explicitly as ‘Filled Cavity’ in an assessment will for some date bands (around 1976 to early 1990s in E&W) effectively be over recording the thermal performance of the wall and resulting in an exaggerated EPC rating.