x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

MEES rules change means cost cap is now set at £3,500

Private landlords with properties on the exemption register with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of F or G will now have to show that the costs to bring the property up to an E rating would be greater than £3,500 (including VAT) after new rules were introduced.

Under the Energy Act 2011, the government pledged to avoid any ‘upfront costs’ for landlords, but this principle was disregarded by setting the cap at £3,500 in November last year.

The key changes came into effect on 1 April. 

The existing MEES requirements mean that landlords with properties which require an EPC cannot start new tenancies in England and Wales in properties with a rating lower than E.

From April 2020, all existing tenancies which require an EPC will need to have a minimum E rating.

The government’s ambition is to bring all property up to a Band C by 2030.

David Cox, chief executive, ARLA Propertymark, previously described the new cap as “bad news for the private rented sector”.

He commented: “Over the last few years, the financial burdens faced by landlords have increased time after time, which is pushing rent costs up and driving buy-to-let investors out of the market.”

ARLA Propertymark wants the government to show its support for landlords by reintroducing the Landlords’ Energy Saving Allowance (LESA) and extending it to include anything contained within the ‘recommendations report’ of an EPC.

Poll: Does the government need to do more to improve energy efficiency of rented homes?

PLACE YOUR VOTE BELOW

  • icon

    Band C by 2030, few of my properties will reach that, but i will be 77 by then, so will i really be bothered, if i'm still here i expect i will put them all in auction and spend the money before i die.

  • icon

    Hell even my own home won’t achieve that, nor my rentals. When built in the 1800s they never took this into consideration, hmmm wonder if I can get a compo claim going 🤔🤔🤔

  • Paul Barrett

    As far as these EPC regs go there could be a distinct possibility that with a good hard BRexit that the UK will scrap these ridiculous EPC regulations which have the capacity to substantially reduce private rental supply.
    Unless a LL is carrying out a complete refurbishment of a property which by implication means no occupying tenant and to at least EPC C status and ideally to B it is simply not worth doing with a tenant in situ.
    Payback would take decades.
    LL would do far better getting rid of any property that could not easily achieve EPC C status to naive homeowners whose last consideration in any buying process is the EPC status of the property.
    They won't realise they are buying a lemon and that they will be restricted in future to selling only to other homeowners.
    No LL would be interested in buying unless at a substantial discount to take account of void costs and EPC C status costs before the property could be let.
    Of course it follows that if a homeowner improves to EPC C status when they come to sell they will be able to sell to LL as well on the basis that the LL could instantly let the property once a sale was completed.
    LL would do well to get rid of their EPC lemons asap!
    It would take decades to achieve payback for improving to EPC C status.
    So why bother retaining such a property that you won't make any money on for years!?

    icon

    "LL would do far better getting rid of any property that could not easily achieve EPC C status to naive homeowners whose last consideration in any buying process is the EPC status of the property.........
    They won't realise they are buying a lemon......"
    So your opinion is that buyers are naive and/or stupid. This also puts all surveyors who report to lenders and buyers and solicitors who advise in the same group. More fool you in putting that tab on buyers and their advisers. They are likely more savvy than you might think so don't put them in the same class as you are clearly in by making such a foolish statement.
    I should sit back down on what you are talking out of you stupid man and stop these diatribes and get on with doing some real work.

     
  • Paul Barrett

    Yep homebuyers are stupid.
    They don't think like LL; why should they?
    They aren't operating a business.
    There are perfectly delightful properties that are F and G.
    No good for letting but perfect for a homeowner.
    I am not totally sure of the costs to make a property C status but the costs appear to be significant and as such may militate against viability.
    Of course I DON'T know exactly and so was conjecturing.
    But please DON'T give aspirant homeowners intelligence.
    They are after a home not a business.
    EPC status does not figure large in their requirements.
    Yes buyers are naive.
    None of them will consider the marketability of their property in the future.
    As a LL I want to be able to sell to the whole market and not just homeowners.
    I think about these things homeowners DON'T consider.
    If I was a homeowner never would I consider ensuring my property is a certain EPC so that I could make the property attractive to a LL if and when I come to sell.
    Surveyors have got nothing to do with the process.
    Believe me few homebuyers would take a blind bit of notice about EPC status whatever a surveyor states.

  • icon

    The wording of this survey question is stupid. Governments should do more to make homes energy efficient but NOT by simply passing the buck on to landlords. I agree with Paul that buyers are unlikely to consider the EPC ratings and neither do tenants in my experience.

    Paul Barrett

    Robert,
    Indeed not one of my tenants has EVER enquired as to the EPC status of ANY of my rental properties.
    I give them all the paperwork at viewings.
    Most of the ultimate tenants regard me with much bemusement as I give them piles of paperwork.
    It goes in a draw never to be looked at again along with all the other bumf we LL are required to give tenants.
    I believe that what Govt should do is require the energy companies contribute to a Govt fund to be used exclusively by LL as grants to enable EPC works to be achieved to reach at least EPC C status.
    I would make it a requirement that the property which had received the grant should remain in the PRS for at least 15 years and if it didn't then ALL the grant monies would be returned.
    Govt would need to impose a 2nd charge on title deeds to ensure they received grant monies if ever the property was sold.
    Perhaps if sold to a LL then the new LL would be required to take over the remainder of the 15 years.
    This seems fair to me.
    Essentially energy companies fund the Govt grants to the PRS which immediately advantages the tenants.
    So ALL tenants not just those on benefits get the benefits of a higher EPC status.
    Make the Energy companies pay cos LL WON'T pay and will invariably just sell the dud properties.

     
  • icon

    Between Minimum room sizes and MEES, the MHCLG ( ' Ministry for Homelessness Communities and Local Government ' ) are doing a cracking job of removing property for rent and increasing Homelessness

  • Paul Barrett

    Yep you have to hand it to all these bodies they are doing an excellent job in reducing the size of the PRS.
    This is good news.
    Hopefully sooner rather than later the reduction in the PRS will finally be recognised as a ludicrous policy.
    Then to be reversed.
    But we need to reach a critical reduction ASAP.
    We need to reach the stage where tenants are screaming at Govt to facilitate increased rental supply.
    Only then might Govt abandon its ridiculous anti-LL policies

icon

Please login to comment

valpal
submit
sign up