Energy Performance Certificates.

Agencies and other headaches, keys and cleaners, running costs and contracts...in short, all the things we spend so much of our time doing behind the scenes.<br>
Drax
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:36 pm
Location: Yorkshire Dales

Energy Performance Certificates.

Post by Drax »

I have been alerted by my rental listing site, Independent Cottages, regarding the possible requirements of holiday home owners to ensure they meet the requirements of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs).
Does anyone on this site have further information on this subject and is it another bureaucratic 'hurdle' we have to jump over?
Keep your powder dry.
User avatar
greenbarn
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 6:41 pm
Location: The Westmorland Dales, Cumbria

Post by greenbarn »

A quick read through the information on Independent Cottages’ site suggests that there might be a requirement for an EPC if the guest pays for the energy consumed rather than it being part of the overall letting cost.

However, there is also a statement that an EPC is only required if the property is let to a tenant. A guest in an FHL is not a tenant, which was the core of the successful counter to the government proposals for EPC on FHLs some years back. The action to establish the counter argument was the result of a combined effort from a number of parties headed up by what was then EASCO, now the HHA, (who are the body that represent the interests of self catering property owners in England).

I haven’t seen anything from EASCO/HHA suggesting the situation has changed, but assuming you’re a member it might be worth contacting them directly for the Gospel on the situation.
Drax
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:36 pm
Location: Yorkshire Dales

Post by Drax »

Unfortunately I am not a member of HHA thus I cannot ask them for guidance.
I have read Independent Cottages blog and links on this subject but I am none the wiser. It appears that FHL owners are required to assess whether or not they are obliged to have an EPC.
I will attempt to 'trawl' through the information again to ascertain whether an EPC is required for my holiday let.
Wishful thinking perhaps. Because this directive originates from the 'dead hand' of Brussels, if we do manage Brexit next year we might be able to forget EPCs.
Keep your powder dry.
zebedee
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: yorkshire dales

Post by zebedee »

Hello Drax,
Greenbarn is correct. We are due to have a Visit England inspection shortly and the inspectors are very up to date with the legal reguirements and inspect everything from our insurance policy onwards.
I specifically confirmed what we needed to produce this year and there was no mention of an EPC.

So long as you don’t ask the guests to put money into a meter for fuel, you are ok without.
Sandra J
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:54 pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Post by Sandra J »

In 2011 when we listed with Cottages4you we had to get an EPC done on our holiday let as part of their requirements. I did query the reason given the bills were being paid by me and not the guests but they said it was required. Cost £50 then to have a one bed cottage assessed. They are valid for 10 years.
zebedee
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: yorkshire dales

Post by zebedee »

Yes, but that was a Cottages.com requirement. Not a legal requirement.
User avatar
greenbarn
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 6:41 pm
Location: The Westmorland Dales, Cumbria

Post by greenbarn »

zebedee wrote:Yes, but that was a Cottages.com requirement. Not a legal requirement.
Plus at the time there were a lot of misleading statements and the outfits that perform EPCs were jumping on the bandwagon and driving it as hard as possible; the result was that a lot of owners paid for an EPC in the belief that if they didn’t have one by a certain date they’d incur fines. The belief was based on government statements, which were in turn based on erroneous assumptions. (It was before the days of painting lies on the side of a bus.)
EASCO engaged a barrister to present reality to the government, which eventually had to back down.
It’s one very good reason why I believe every FHL owner should be a member of EASCO (HHA as they’re now called) or their Scottish (and Welsh I believe) equivalents, for a paltry forty quid a year.

Disclaimer - I don’t have any connection with EASCO/HHA other than as a member! (If I did, I’d have made sure they didn’t change their name to something as stupid as the Holiday Homes Association! ;-) )

I seem to recall a lot of involvement from an accountant with a specialist interest in FHL law, and who has produced a bible on FHL taxation - but I can’t remember his name other than John. Sorry John!

PS - My other brain cell finally connected - name was John Endacott.
Last edited by greenbarn on Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
greenbarn
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 6:41 pm
Location: The Westmorland Dales, Cumbria

Post by greenbarn »

What I don’t understand is the reference from Independent Cottages to the significance of April 2018, which suggests that it might not all be old news; alternatively it might simply suggest that there’s further confusion...

EDIT
I’ve had a quick search and there are changes to EPC regs as from April 2018. I haven’t looked in the detail, but a useful summary (which I think is much the same as that from Independent Cottages) is:
Who will require one from April 2018

The official guidelines state that ‘an Energy Performance Certificate will only be required for a property rented out as a furnished holiday let, as defined by HMRC, where:

the building is occupied for the purposes of a holiday as a result of a short term letting arrangement of less than 31 days to each tenant, and;

is rented out for a combined total of four months or more in any 12 month period

if the occupier is responsible for meeting the energy costs for the property.

There are however some exclusions to this and it is advised that you read the full guidance on this link if you’re unsure of where you stand:

A guide to energy performance certificates for the marketing, sale and let of dwellings
User avatar
greenbarn
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 6:41 pm
Location: The Westmorland Dales, Cumbria

Post by greenbarn »

Ha! I should know better than to waste my time scanning some of these documents.
Here’s a cracker - the document referenced above deals with buildings that are dwellings.
There’s a different set of requirements and exclusions, in a different document, if the building is a “non-dwelling” (helpfully defined in the appropriate document as “ a building which is not a dwelling”).
So - what about the very large number of buildings that are owned by individuals and used as FHLs, but don’t qualify (under planning laws) as dwellings because the planning approval restricts them to use as FHLs (eg many conversions of agricultural buildings)?

The law states that an EPC must be available for each new tenant, but an FHL guest is not a tenant as they don’t have the legal rights of a tenant; their agreement with the property owner is a “licence to occupy”, not a tenancy.

Our barn conversion definitely meets the rules for being classed as an FHL, but would also be classed as a non-dwelling.

So - is this an example of Heisenberg’s principle, or Schrodinger’s, or simultaneously both and neither?
At this point, I give up.
Drax
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:36 pm
Location: Yorkshire Dales

Post by Drax »

greenbarn wrote:Ha! I should know better than to waste my time scanning some of these documents.
Here’s a cracker - the document referenced above deals with buildings that are dwellings.
There’s a different set of requirements and exclusions, in a different document, if the building is a “non-dwelling” (helpfully defined in the appropriate document as “ a building which is not a dwelling”).
So - what about the very large number of buildings that are owned by individuals and used as FHLs, but don’t qualify (under planning laws) as dwellings because the planning approval restricts them to use as FHLs (eg many conversions of agricultural buildings)?

The law states that an EPC must be available for each new tenant, but an FHL guest is not a tenant as they don’t have the legal rights of a tenant; their agreement with the property owner is a “licence to occupy”, not a tenancy.

Our barn conversion definitely meets the rules for being classed as an FHL, but would also be classed as a non-dwelling.

So - is this an example of Heisenberg’s principle, or Schrodinger’s, or simultaneously both and neither?
At this point, I give up.

Full marks to you greenbarn for an in-depth search of this 'definite/maybe or not' requirement. (My brain is beginning to hurt.)

I am beginning to wonder if it is best for ones sanity to simply ignore EPC FHL requirements because to me it is 'clear as mud'.
Keep your powder dry.
Drax
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:36 pm
Location: Yorkshire Dales

Post by Drax »

I have emailed the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, asking them for a definitive answer to EPCs relating to FHLs.
I will post their reply on this forum when I receive it. (I am not confident it will be clear-cut)
Keep your powder dry.
User avatar
greenbarn
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 6:41 pm
Location: The Westmorland Dales, Cumbria

Post by greenbarn »

Drax wrote: I am beginning to wonder if it is best for ones sanity to simply ignore EPC FHL requirements because to me it is 'clear as mud'.
If I had any sanity left I’d agree with that.
zebedee
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: yorkshire dales

Post by zebedee »

This is the latest guidance updated October 2018

(Edited to add:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -documents )

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

Section 34 states


34.A building will also not need an EPC where the landlord can demonstrate that it is furnished holiday accommodation as defined by HMRC and the holiday- maker is not responsible for meeting the energy costs. Under certain circumstances buildings may also be exempt from the requirement to obtain an EPC where it may be demonstrated that they are to be demolished. This is subject to a number of conditions as set out in Regulation 8 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Further information on the definitions of the building types set out above is provided at Appendix E of this guidance.
This is exactly the same as the previous guidance.
I think the confusion is because the government is raising the threshold for the EPC score on rental properties as part of their attempts to combat climate change.
They are looking to force people into making buildings more energy efficient. Soon, a landlord will not be legally allowed to rent out a property which has the lowest score on the EPC and the lower acceptable scores are being raised systematically by the government.

This is of direct relevance to you if you are about to rent a property as you don’t want to find yourself with a 6 month contract and unexpected huge energy bills.

With a FHL, as I have stated previously, if the owner pays the bills an EPC is not needed. If you expect a guest to pay separately for heating then an EPC is needed.

The grey area may arise if you charge guests anything for logs or coal. If there is an adequate heating supply from another source, you wouldn’t need an EPC.
If you restrict temperatures at all and expec guests to buy logs or coal, again you may (and this is just my conservative speculation) be on thin ice.
Drax
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:36 pm
Location: Yorkshire Dales

Post by Drax »

[quote="zebedee"]This is the latest guidance updated October 2018
This is exactly the same as the previous guidance.
I think the confusion is because the government is raising the threshold for the EPC score on rental properties as part of their attempts to combat climate change.
They are looking to force people into making buildings more energy efficient. Soon, a landlord will not be legally allowed to rent out a property which has the lowest score on the EPC and the lower acceptable scores are being raised systematically by the government.

With a FHL, as I have stated previously, if the owner pays the bills an EPC is not needed. If you expect a guest to pay separately for heating then an EPC is needed.

The grey area may arise if you charge guests anything for logs or coal. If there is an adequate heating supply from another source, you wouldn’t need an EPC.
If you restrict temperatures at all and expec guests to buy logs or coal, again you may (and this is just my conservative speculation) be on thin ice.[/quote]
[/u]

Top marks Zebedee for digging this out.
It would seem most of us are 'in the clear' with regard to EPCs and we can 'breathe a sigh of relief'.
Keep your powder dry.
Post Reply