Energy secretary Ed Miliband has committed to consult on raising the minimum energy efficiency standards for private and social rented homes by 2030.
The consultation will happen “by the end of the year”, according to The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Currently, private rented homes can be rented out if they meet Energy Performance Certificate E, while social rented homes have no minimum energy efficiency standard at all.
The government will now consult on proposals for private and social rented homes to achieve Energy Performance Certificate C or equivalent by 2030.
Commenting on the proposals, Chris Norris, policy director for the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) said: “The NRLA wants to see all rented properties become as energy efficient as possible. However, the government’s approach must involve a clear and comprehensive plan which recognises that the sector has some of the oldest, and hardest to improve, properties in the UK’s housing stock.
“The sector needs a clear trajectory setting out what will be expected of it and by when. This plan must also ensure sufficient numbers of tradespeople are in place to undertake the work that will be required.
Norris added: “Alongside this, as the Committee on Fuel Poverty has warned, is the need for a financial package to support investment in energy efficiency measures. At present, the private rented sector is the only housing tenure without a bespoke package to support work to upgrade homes.”
According to official data, in 2022, almost 45% of private rented properties in England had an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of at least a C, more than double the rate compared to 2012. However, a third of private rented sector homes were built before 1919, a higher proportion than any other tenure. These are among some of the hardest to improve properties of the entire housing stock.
Research suggests the UK is set to see a shortfall in the number of tradespeople grow to 250,000 by 2030 while the Committee on Fuel Poverty has argued that landlords could best be supported to improve the energy efficiency of rented housing “through tax offsets for improvements, loans or potentially grants for landlords with a low profit margin in areas of low rental value”.
Proper thick Ed Miliband is.
Cold and draughty?
Come and tell that my tenants who’s got new boiler, new windows, warm home, but UNFORTUNATELY, still an EPC D cause of the way the flawed system works.
And tell them we know u paying £200pm below market rent and perfectly happy, but if we get u to EPC D (which we know that means you’ll have to pay market rent £2400 per year more}, we’ll look good to the voters for doing what we say.
And we’ll keep quiet about how we constantly retrospectively changing the rules after you’ve moved in and this causes more landlords to sell, but we’ll blame homeless on a local level.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Or sell up the old stock and pay more CGT to keep the benefit brigade in the comfort they are used to.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Half the rental properties being Victorian are going to cost a fortune, better off waiting for the u turn, labour out of power or slowly watered down.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Why are privately owned dwellings never mentioned by Govt when demanding higher EPCs?
Owner occupied dwellings marginally outscore privated rented for EPC ratings in only 2/4 property types. 1 is equal and the other rented is marginally higher.
Owner occupied homes make up 62% of all UK dwellings. Am I missing something??
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Housing trusts and council houses were exempt from EPC proposed rule change under the last prospective legislation, because they know with old housing stock it’s too costly to achieve. So it’s not really about the tenants comfort and costs or saving the world.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I would assume that it is because a rental with a low score can be sold, therefore reducing the PRS and either increasing home ownership by increasing supply and driving the market down, or allowing councils/housing trusts to purchase cheaply to increase their rental stock.
And that as it is someone’s personal home, there is a limit to what they can force us to do. If they try to force OO to increase the rating or it cannot be lived in, either they will have to come up with massive grants (with either no interest or no repayment) to fund it, or they will have millions of people suddenly demanding council/local authority homes as theirs are ‘uninhabitable’ legally. They would then have to be sold far below what they are mortgaged for, as no-one would buy them for their ‘true’ value if they need to spend tens of thousands on box-ticking improvements, meaning an entire generation goes into negative equity and the financial systems collapse. Then followed by the rest of the civilised world and we all end up realising that those houses weren’t actually that bad compared to living in a cave or a tent..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Arranged an epc yesterday on a victorian end terrace house, came in at D. Using the estimated costs on EPC (where do those figures come from. £1400 to replace windows in a 3 bed?). To get to a C would cost £14,000, to achieve just £600 a year saving for the tenants. Figures are wrong, algorithms are wrong and, not yet met tenants who take any notice.
This is communism!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What an absolute tool of a man and completely out of touch with building techniques. Impossible to achieve on dwellings built 75 -125 years ago, without adding 150mm to every outside wall (making the house smaller), ripping floors up to add insulation underneath. Ripping ceilings down to add extra insulation. Even 1970’s homes would struggle. Band D would be very difficult in some homes but a more sensible target. I built my own house in 2005 with over and above insulation added to the 2005 regs. Kingspan backed inner skin block work, thermal backed dry lined inside. Insulated ground and first floor. Still only a Band C.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A “C” rating is too high for older properties to achieve, unless you’re prepared to spend £1000’s. Realistically the benchmark should be a D rating.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am going to keep this one short……apologies as its been typed in haste, due to the distain of the author, so will be strewn with spelling and grammatical error……….
I ve been saying it for nearly 10 years now. This is not, and never has been, about the energy efficiency or becoming carbon neutral. This is yet another weapon to remove the smaller private landlord. The cleansing continues. No need to list all the various ways successive governments have hammered the small guy/girl whilst favouring the big investment organisations. Not to mention what is ahead with the renters reform and pandering to the mischaracterisation of the accelerated possession proceedings AKA the no fault eviction. (sec21 4b and latterly 6a)
This was a plan hatched years ago. Clear out the small landlord and replace with the large investment funds. Read in EYE today the latest story of Nest (with L&G) investing further Billions in the PRS. They (rule makers) have realised recently there is a small fly in the ointment in as much as interest rates rose higher than expected and many landlords exited in a short period due to the real bite of sec24 relief removal coinciding with a stable sales market. Available stock levels have plummeted, whilst multi billion pound investment takes time to clunk through to creating available houses. So, what’s the answer to this we hear asked in the corridors of power? How do we stick to the plan but reduce the exodus of the small landlords (in the short term) whilst the investment firms step in? The answer that the latest con men/women have come up with ? Hit landlords YET AGAIN when they come to sell with higher capital gains tax. Many landlords are in the 60/70’s and owned their portfolio for 20/30 years so politicians know there are large gains in the portfolio so its win / win for the government. Landlords sell, the government robs more of the return on investment or dont sell and stock levels stay stable whilst big business comes in.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register