Recommended Posts

I just received my EPC and it’s an EER of 84, so mid B, with a potential of 93 (A) if i instal 2.5kWp of PV. With regard the individual elements they all had 5 stars except DHW which was 3 stars. I rang the chap who did this report to ask why the heating (ASHP) got 5 stars but the DHW (still ASHP) got 3 stars. He explained that the UFH ran at a low temp but the DHW required immersions to bring the temp up to 60’!. I told him he was wrong, I run my DHW at 47-48’ which is hot enough for dish washing, showers and baths, I don’t heat to 60’ even for legionella protection as there is (in my opinion and many others) no risk in a domestic situation. So my DHW should be 5 stars along with UFH. He could not disagree but the EPC software makes an assumption the DHW runs at 60’ and he could not change it. I questioned the DHW cylinder calculated heat loss of 1.9kWh per day and he agreed that at 47’ the heat loss would be much lower but he was ruled by the 60’ figure the EPC uses. He also mentioned the EPC was about the house, not how it was run as a new owner may run the DHW at 60’. His last comment was that the results were very good, even for a new build which are not often that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is the problem with the EPC.

It is really the underlying legislation/standards.  They are generally worse case scenarios or the complete opposite.

Nothing self builders can do about it.

Except put in some PV on your huge garage roof.

You like roofing, pull it off and fit some integrated panels, they will help keep the garage cooler in the summer.

 

Your B is just one above my 1987 built timber frame house ;)

Edited by SteamyTea
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was a B85...I was hugely upset at the time given the efforts and expense we went to on everything.  I think without PV its nigh on impossible to get an A under the current system. Given the current parameters your B is good...as was said to me.....doesn't make it any easier to swallow though does it!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had an initial SAP done on our designs. The house meets passive standards of insulation and air tightness but EPC comes in at 85.... the heat demand, heat loss, DWH demands etc are completely different from what will be reality. It's basically meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty similar to ours 88 B add solar pv for A 

Ours is block and block

No Mvr 

Do the EPCs mean anything 

I was truthful with the info I gave

But I wasn’t asked for any proof

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Conor said:

We had an initial SAP done on our designs. The house meets passive standards of insulation and air tightness but EPC comes in at 85.... the heat demand, heat loss, DWH demands etc are completely different from what will be reality. It's basically meaningless.

 

You would see a massive improvement with PV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mr Punter yep - adding 2.5kw of PV brings it up to 90. I've just read through it again and it does seem to make some worse case assumptions - massive heatloss (2kw) for DWH tank, cold bridging everywhere etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, nod said:

Pretty similar to ours 88 B add solar pv for A 

Ours is block and block

No Mvr 

Do the EPCs mean anything 

I was truthful with the info I gave

But I wasn’t asked for any proof

 

 

I am surprised you got 88 without MVHR , better than ours but your heat loss with trickle vents must impact on the result?. Yup, EPC,s not very realistic. (For us fussy build hubbers). I am beginning to think about PV fir the future on my garage roof.

Edited by joe90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll double check later 

It was the Pv that stuck in my mind 

As it was a planning condition that we have and exceed the standard by 20% Garage roof was an option 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't got mine yet, but the indication was, as people here are saying, a high B that might become an A when the PV is included.

 

We all worry about it, because we think the effort we have put in deserves an A, most people have put in a lot more effort to this than me.

 

But other than for how we feel, it will have no impact on the value of anyone's house. Most people don't seem to care, certainly not between an A and a B.

 

So chill.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nod said:

I’ll double check later 

It was the Pv that stuck in my mind 

As it was a planning condition that we have and exceed the standard by 20% Garage roof was an option 

 

Yes 88 92 with the addition of PV

cost £7000. - £9000 Annual saving

£253 approx

I think I posted the results at the time 

The 88 didn’t really mean anything to me It was more the cost of PV 

and the saving that I found ironic 

I think Dave and Declan states at the time that you really need to be sourcing and fitting the pc yourself to see a return 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conor said:

massive heatloss (2kw) for DWH tank,

 

That really would be massive. I hope you mean 2 kWh/day which is 1/24th as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ed Davies said:

 

That really would be massive. I hope you mean 2 kWh/day which is 1/24th as much.

 

Interesting, I just looked at the “regulation compliance report” and it states “ measured cylinder loss = 1.95 kWh”, no it was not, they did not measure the loss, it was assumed!! And I know it’s less because of the relatively low temp I keep the DHW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine came through as a high c think it was a 79. But I did no air pressure test so my result was put into the computer as 15 air changes per HR which means my house has no windows or doors!!! Makes no different to any one as in the long run  it's just another tick in another box that you need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to look at the disparity between the EPC/SAP and reality is think about what a good job you have done.

Shame I did not read your meter when I set up the logger, and when I was last over.

But according to my logger, you have used 6,109 kWh of electricity.

That is only about a third larger than mine, and your house is at least 4 times larger.

6,109 / 200 = 30.5 kWh.m-2.year-1.

Apart from the energy input from that smokey wood burner that is.  Still, most of that goes up the chimney.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lizzie said:

Mine was a B85...I was hugely upset at the time given the efforts and expense we went to on everything.  I think without PV its nigh on impossible to get an A under the current system. Given the current parameters your B is good...as was said to me.....doesn't make it any easier to swallow though does it!

 

 

It is possible to get an A without PV. We got an A(95) without PV and IIRC I was told it would be an A(103) with 3.6kW system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, joe90 said:

 

I am surprised you got 88 without MVHR , better than ours but your heat loss with trickle vents must impact on the result?. Yup, EPC,s not very realistic. (For us fussy build hubbers). I am beginning to think about PV fir the future on my garage roof.

 

We registered a B84 without MVHR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got between B85 and B88 over seven terraced houses. No renewables or MVHR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does the MVHR make any difference to the EPC? Is this another area where the EPC does not relate to the real world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We scraped an A with PV and passive standard insulation, airtightness etc.. I recall that confirming the UFH temp was part of the nudge that got us over the hump but it was close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

. I recall that confirming the UFH temp was part of the nudge that got us over the hump 

 

I was never asked about the temp the UFH ran at!,!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, joe90 said:

 

I was never asked about the temp the UFH ran at!,!!

nor me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that the EPS rating doesn't mean anything useful, and is ignored by the majority of house purchasers, it seems.

 

What really matters is whether the house is comfortable and whether it's cheap to run.  If both of these criteria are met then the EPC can just sit in a drawer gathering dust, whilst you enjoy the fruits of your labour.

 

 

Just had our electricity bill, and, coincidentally, the FiT statement (no cheque yet, though).  We're paying £48/month by direct debit, and are currently £101 in credit (we switched supplier in January, so that's ~5 months to build up that credit).  The FiT statement is for £340 for the quarter, so we're on target for a normal year, which is an income of around £1,000 from the PV system.  That's balanced by an electricity bill for the year of around £576, but I think we're over-paying at £48/month, as we've built up a hefty credit in just under 5 months.  I think we should really be paying about £35/month, but our supplier wouldn't initially accept a direct debit that small.  If I'm right, then we should end up paying around £420 to £450 for the year, and receiving back around £1,000, so well over £500/year in profit.  Not bad seeing as I'm now pretty much always charging my car for free, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  I have yet to do this (and will only pay for it if building control insist on an as built SAP)

 

Our design SAP was annoyingly 1 point short of an A, but I noted they had the make up of the roof wrong, so the insulation in the roof as built is better than used in the design SAP, so I am confident if we have to do it we should get an A.

 

But as you say really a waste of paper, as generally buyers take no notice of such a thing. not that selling is even remotely in the plan.  And I hear stories that if you do sell, they won't take a properly calculated SAP report and insist on a new RDSAP asessment full of assumptions and invariable a poorer result.

 

It is a great shame that we were denied claiming  the FIT when it was worthwhile, but the consolation prize is we are still collecting the FIT from the old house at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I am not bothered about it, but it’s a bit of a competition on here to do well, is it not ? 🤔

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now