Since 2007, four million sellers and landlords have been forced to pay an estimated £250 million for Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs). However, Labour has failed to put in place any mechanism to ensure they are contacted after purchase to discuss energy savings measures such as loft and cavity wall insulation. Neither is there any mechanism in place to contact buyers or landlords of a property after purchase or renting

What Labour has effectively done is collected £60 - £100 in return for a piece of paper and walked away with the cash without any obligation to do anything. As a result, most EPCs have not been acted upon and to most sellers and landlords it seems Government has simply taken their money and abandoned them. If this happened in the private sector, it would be regarded as dubious practice. 

The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory and not in the public's best interests:  

• The EPC was meant to be the most important tool for facilitating improvement in the energy efficiency of homes, reducing energy bills and carbon emissions. However, it has become "tarred" by being part of the unpopular Home Information Pack (HIP)
• There is no mechanism in place for Energy Savings Trust (EST) to be given the contact details of EPC owners or those of buyers and tenants so they can provide help and advice on how to implement recommendations made in the EPC.
• The main suppliers of EPCs to homeowners - estate agents and conveyancing solicitors - are not referring homeowners or tenants to EST or insulation installers.
• Domestic Energy Assessors cannot give advice on EPCs or make recommendations as to possible suppliers as they are required to stay impartial.
• EST cannot refer EPC owners to installers, only 'signpost'.
• There is a widespread gap in the commercial EPC sector. A recent survey by National Energy Services indicates that only around 40% of commercial properties for sale / rent have EPCs.
• Some EPCs are 'strewn with schoolboy errors' and 'glaring omissions', according to CLG in a warning to the accreditation schemes that are meant to police the regime.
• Sellers pay for EPCs but buyers mainly benefit.
• There is no mechanism to transfer ownership of an EPC. It stays with the seller after sale of a property.
• No mechanism exists to record the contact details of buyers upon purchase of a property
• Address details on the EPC register are those of the tenant, not the landlord
• Homes are valued by an estate agent before an EPC is issued which precludes consideration being given to the energy rating or what measures could be implemented to increase value.
• Neither buyers or tenants can search homes by EPC ratings or compare properties they are considering buying or renting
• Government has no statistics on the number of homes with EPCs that have been improved as a result of the document because no mechanism exists to record such details.
• Some social landlords are not arranging EPCs / implementing recommended measures.
• There is no legal obligation to include the full EPC in property particulars. All that is required is to include the EPC bar chart which is not helpful to homeowners and tenants without further explanation.   

And, following a recent change in legislation, it is my understanding that EST is to mail F/G EPC rated homes at taxpayers expense. However, the mailings are likely to be unproductive and costly because: 

• Their letters will be unsolicited and addressed to 'the occupier' as they do not have the owners' contact details. They will therefore probably 'end up in the bin'
• Printing, envelope and postage costs will be incurred.
• There will be no follow up calls.
• Letters intended for landlords will be received by tenants.
• No contact will be made with owners of E rated homes  

Since 2007, Labour has been saying EPCs are very important but at the same time has done little to police them or deliver action. Doing nothing is not an option and an urgent rethink is therefore required on how to get sellers, buyers, landlords and tenants to act. 

Around 1 million new EPCs are expected to be issued this year and annually thereafter at an estimated cost to homeowners of £60 million per year. This excludes the cost of EPCs that may be required for e.g. houses in multiple occupation and short term lets in the future.

In an attempt to solve the problem, Labour is now considering banning the rental of un-insulated homes and EST has called on Government to also ban the sale of un-insulated homes. However, these calls have alienated homeowners and the home selling, buying and renting supply chain and have little likelihood of being put into practice because of overwhelming opposition to such a draconian proposal.

It therefore has to be questioned as to whether EST's mailings will be a good use of taxpayers' money and if legislation is the best way forward.

What are the alternative solutions? 

Most sellers and landlords purchase EPCs as part of a HIP through estate agents. Buyers subsequently receive the EPC through their conveyancer. Tenants are given a copy of their EPC by the letting agent. 

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have said that if elected, they will abolish HIPs. However, EPCs will remain and both have also said that they want to see action on them. 

If HIPs are abolished then it appears there are two options: 1) give responsibility to EST or ANO organisation for the purchase / sale of EPCs to homeowners and to generate action or  2) encourage estate agents, conveyancers and others to establish EPC referral schemes.

Option 1 would incur considerable reorganisation, staff and marketing costs. It would also require a change in legislation and given the need to cut back public spending, I question this option's viability.  

In October 2008, I therefore wrote to the then Ministers for Housing and Energy & Climate Change pointing out the inadequacies of the current system and proposed a solution. This was rejected. 

In July 2009, I sent another proposal that a calling programme be launched on estate agents, conveyancing solicitors and other organisations in the property selling, buying and renting supply chain with the objective of delivering action on domestic and commercial EPCs. 

This proposal was taken up by Labour through the Department of Energy & Climate Change but at the last minute',  I was advised that the £18,000 cost of the calling programme would not be funded by Labour as if it were to prove successful, it would present commercial opportunities from which estate agents and insulation companies will benefit. A subsequent appeal to the Ministers responsible for energy/climate change and housing to reconsider their decision was unsuccessful.

As a result, the calling programme is 'on hold' and an opportunity to potentially create 000s of jobs and make 500,000 homes with E-G EPC ratings more energy efficient, is in jeapordy.

More on this later this week.