Energy Performance Certificate reform consultation

One issue with the above approach is that it doesn't show how good the building is given the limitations of the fabric of the building. A modern build could in theory have an A rating but be a C which indicates that work needs to be done.
An older building could be an E but that is the best it can be.

Listing both the current rating and the maximum for the fabric of the building makes sense.

Domestic hot water is particular to the inhabitants of the building, children using more and so on. My experience of EPC's is that the number doesn't bear any resemblance to reality

Without examples it is difficult to see what is meant here.

I have no experience in this area so can't comment,

I can't see any point to this.

If you're selling the house and the EPC is out of data as you've had work done it's in your interest to get an EPC done to show the new efficiency.

A similar argument can be used for landlords although this is an argument to locking this into a similar cycle as to other certificates a landlord needs.

Reducing to five years doesn't do anything as far as I can see.

One issue is that at this point in time EPCs are being used as almost the sole arbiter on grants and loans for improvements.

For older properties improvements don't offer the same EPC improvement as to newer properties which means that older properties can't access these funds. Which means that older properties remain poorly insulated.

Using this measure for future legislation is worrying and will discriminate against island and highland communities where older croft style properties suffer from poorer ratings due to their construction and also are very expensive to retrofit.

By using EPC ratings to control things such as sales (which is one idea I've heard) you will end up destroying the housing market on islands leading to further depopulation and mean that older people end up trapped in unsuitable housing.

Care has to be taken to ensure that this does not happen and regional and cultural issues are considered.

1. PDF's can be designed to be accessible. It's not a problem with PDF's it's a problem with their production.
2. PDF's can be designed to be viewable on mobile devices.
3. Approximately 5% of the population doesn't have access to the internet, 10% don't have access to mobile. Conversely 3% are blind. By moving to webpage format you are reducing inclusion by moving to a webpage format. You're making it twice as bad.
4. The additional step to validate an EPC is really important for security, having a secondary system to validify accuracy is really important and can prevent fraud etc.
5. Presenting more information can be done in a PDF in an appendix. 2 page summary (as now) with all further detail in an appendix.
6. In remote regions internet access (mobile) is spotty at best and accessing the information on a mobile is going to be difficult anyway.
7. This is a solution looking for a problem.
8. You'll introduce phishing into the EPC system.

The purpose of an EPC is to provide a snapshot as it was when performed (such as an MOT certificate does). Making it a live document doesn't help with this and if anything makes things more complicated.

The MOT approach is a good example of a system that works. You have a document given to you to prove what the car was like on the day. An online history of the vehicle that can be checked and a security check (V5) to access extra information.


Not meaning to be rude but the move to webpage seems to be one of the new buzzwords. A year ago it was blockchain this and blockchain that. In the next revision of this I'd expect to see AI and chatgpt mentioned.

This isn't the purpose of an EPC. An EPC has a purpose it the same way as an energy label on a TV or freezer.

What is proposed here is a good idea but for a different set of issues. The information held in a database like this could be used to produce an EPC but it is not an EPC.

As above I think that this is looking this the wrong way. An EPC is an output from a database of information and not a feed into a database.

Based on what I have read this is a mistake - it's conflating an EPC with home improvements and the like.

The ideas behind liking information together is good but too undefined at the moment to be practical for a document that has legal standing.

Given the vagueness of the proposals above and the complexities of what is required there is no way that this will be ready by 2025. I doubt you'd even be able to firm up the requirements by then.

EPCs are a vital part of home reports and thus the housing market, having unrealistic and overambitious schedules could have the knock on effect of affecting sales and prices.