Council’s demands .

[Pocster]

Hmmmmm , more impossible tasks .

Rental property . Loft room . 50mm pir in walls , 100mm assumed in the roof states the epc .

 

Council say to renew hmo license :

 

 

Hazard: Excess Cold

Defects relating to the hazard:

1. According to the provided EPC, the loft insulation does not provide sufficient thermal

insulation.

Works required to mitigate the hazard:

1. Provide insulation to the roof of the property to provide a maximum U-Value of 0.16 W/M2. The

method of improving the thermal insulation should be informed by the Approved Document L of

the Building Regulations 2010 that details the acceptable standard of insulation and other

elements such as the provision of adequate ventilation (including cross ventilation) is provided

to the roof space and the insulation of cold-water storage and associated pipework.

If internal insulation boarding is used to support the fitting of insulation, this additional boarding

must not reduce the room size of any bedrooms to less than 6.51m2. In addition, any insulation

must not be installed in such a way that may contribute to additional hazard e.g. routing of

cables.

 

I think their ‘maximum’ - assume they mean minimum is virtually impossible to achieve on a 1930’s house ???

[ProDave]

I have said before, sell up and retire.  Being a LL is not worth it these days.  Let someone else have the "fun" of upgrading that to the required standard.

[Redbeard]

Hang on, it's a long time since I dealt with rentals but does renewal of an HMO licence *really* allow them to move the goalposts every term (how long is the term)?

 

And a Q - Is the '100mm assumed in the roof' PIR or mineral wool?

 

And are there both sloping and flat ceilings?  I assume so. No sweat (or not much) to upgrade 'fluff' in a void. More so to insulate sloping soffits, but it can be done. 150 PIR will give you 0.16 or slightly better.

 

BUT I cannot, in a quick search, find anything on the web saying that they can require an upgrade to current standards. Of course I may be missing something.

 

If we ignore the 'base case' R value of a roof (SAP assumption for uninsulated is U value 2.0W/m2K, therefore R uninsulated is 0.5M2K/W), taking the view that thermal bridging of rafters etc may more- or-less cancel that out, then 100mm of mineral wool (with lambda value 0.044W/mK would give a U value of 0.44W/m2K, a long way from 0.16.

 

However if it is PIR it's 0.22W/mK, not so far from 0.16.

 

And yes, they do mean minimum!

[nod]

I’d have loved to have kept our rentals on

This is why we have so far sold nine rentals in the last two years Over legislation and everything loaded in the tenants favor

[Pocster]

19 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

Hang on, it's a long time since I dealt with rentals but does renewal of an HMO licence *really* allow them to move the goalposts every term (how long is the term)?

 

And a Q - Is the '100mm assumed in the roof' PIR or mineral wool?

 

And are there both sloping and flat ceilings?  I assume so. No sweat (or not much) to upgrade 'fluff' in a void. More so to insulate sloping soffits, but it can be done. 150 PIR will give you 0.16 or slightly better.

 

BUT I cannot, in a quick search, find anything on the web saying that they can require an upgrade to current standards. Of course I may be missing something.

 

If we ignore the 'base case' R value of a roof (SAP assumption for uninsulated is U value 2.0W/m2K, therefore R uninsulated is 0.5M2K/W), taking the view that thermal bridging of rafters etc may more- or-less cancel that out, then 100mm of mineral wool (with lambda value 0.044W/mK would give a U value of 0.44W/m2K, a long way from 0.16.

 

However if it is PIR it's 0.22W/mK, not so far from 0.16.

 

And yes, they do mean minimum!

Do what they want . Oh don’t worry - it’s impossible to do . The roof is insulated with pir - I had this done when I replaced the entire roof ) the epc as you can see is non specific on type …

Ceiling all sloping . There’s no way further insulation can be added in the roof void .

They play ‘ let’s be twats ‘ like the council do with all requirements 

[Pocster]

Whilst I await their reply - I chatted to my mate ChatGPT - gave it some info and some ‘guidance ‘ and got this …

 

Roof and Wall Insulation U-Value Summary

 

1. Overview

 

 

This document summarises the thermal performance of the roof and wall insulation at the property, combining the effects of 50mm PIR insulated walls and 100mm PIR insulated roof as referenced in the EPC. It compares the current condition to the council’s overall Excess Cold hazard U-value target.

 

2. Insulation Details and U-Value Calculations

 

 

 

• Walls: 50mm PIR board
  Thermal conductivity (λ): 0.022 W/m·K
  R-value: 2.27 m²K/W
  U-value: 0.44 W/m²K
• Roof: 100mm PIR board (assumed)
  Thermal conductivity (λ): 0.022 W/m·K
  R-value: 4.55 m²K/W
  U-value: 0.22 W/m²K

 

 

Average U-value calculation (assuming equal surface areas):

(U_walls + U_roof) / 2 = (0.44 + 0.22) / 2 = 0.33 W/m²K

 

3. Council Requirement

 

 

The council’s target U-value for overall thermal performance to mitigate Excess Cold hazard is 0.16 W/m²K. This is a stringent target generally aimed at new builds or comprehensive refurbishments.

 

4. Practical Limitations

 

 

 

• The property has 50mm PIR insulated walls and an assumed 100mm PIR roof insulation as per the EPC.
• Due to sloped ceilings and lack of accessible loft space, increasing roof insulation is not feasible without major disruption.
• Increasing wall insulation internally would reduce bedroom sizes below the legal minimum of 6.51m².
• Therefore, current insulation represents a reasonable compromise given these constraints.

 

 

 

5. Conclusion

 

 

 

• The current combined average U-value of approximately 0.33 W/m²K is above the council’s ideal 0.16 target.
• However, it significantly improves thermal performance compared to uninsulated constructions (typically over 2.0 W/m²K).
• The installed insulation is consistent with EPC assumptions and is the best practical solution without tenant disruption or breaching room size limits.
• The council should consider this as reasonable mitigation under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

 

So we await before u sending that above .

I will also add that to comply I.e by insulating internally would make the room below minimum room standards . Therefore I shall evict everyone and sell it .

 

So ill wait them until I cause them to backdown 😊

[Pocster]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I have said before, sell up and retire.  Being a LL is not worth it these days.  Let someone else have the "fun" of upgrading that to the required standard.

That’s inevitable. But ! The harder it gets to survive the less properties the more demand . But at some point I just go (expletive deleted) it and sell .

An agent manages everything now and I am on their case without hesitation… 😊

[Mr Punter]

Another vote to sell.  I have a small HMO but I doubt it will easily sell so I am stuck with it.  It is a maisonette above a launderette.

[Pocster]

11 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

Another vote to sell.  I have a small HMO but I doubt it will easily sell so I am stuck with it.  It is a maisonette above a launderette.

Oooo - that’s a pig . I got 2 flats which literally have just received funding for ews1 - though no cladding …. Can’t wait to bin them , earn (expletive deleted) all .

[ProDave]

50 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

Hang on, it's a long time since I dealt with rentals but does renewal of an HMO licence *really* allow them to move the goalposts every term (how long is the term)?

Different in different council areas but here in Scotland all rental properties must achieve an EPC C to get a licence.  There is nothing to say that won't change in the future.

 

It was all the other red tape and the 3 yearly renewal and sheer extra costs that made us sell.  Our last property sold to the tenant so at least no eviction needed.

 

[LnP]

Looks like lots of current and ex landlords on here. I've thought about it but largely through inertia never got round to it ... but is it a good investment? I've often wondered, if you put all of the expenses, rental incomes and capital gain into a discounted cash flow, what annualised return does it yield? Investing in a plain Jane MSCI World Index ETF over the last 10 years would have yielded an annualised before tax 11.7%, with none of the hassle.

[Pocster]

22 minutes ago, LnP said:

Looks like lots of current and ex landlords on here. I've thought about it but largely through inertia never got round to it ... but is it a good investment? I've often wondered, if you put all of the expenses, rental incomes and capital gain into a discounted cash flow, what annualised return does it yield? Investing in a plain Jane MSCI World Index ETF over the last 10 years would have yielded an annualised before tax 11.7%, with none of the hassle.

As a currently ; professional landlord I can tell you know not to bother . The regs / renters reform bill / remortgage costs ( I had one at 32k FEES!!! ) / social issues etc etc etc it isn’t worth it 

Edited June 24 by Pocster

[ProDave]

40 minutes ago, LnP said:

Looks like lots of current and ex landlords on here. I've thought about it but largely through inertia never got round to it ... but is it a good investment? I've often wondered, if you put all of the expenses, rental incomes and capital gain into a discounted cash flow, what annualised return does it yield? Investing in a plain Jane MSCI World Index ETF over the last 10 years would have yielded an annualised before tax 11.7%, with none of the hassle.

We had two, bought as buy to lets.  The 1 bedroom flat had mostly short tenants rarely staying ,much beyond 6 months so with the cost of changes, void periods etc, that one made more from capital gain than rental profit.  The other was a 2 bedroom terrace house that had longer term tenants so made a lot more from the rental profit than capital gain.

 

After we sold both of those we thought we were done, but market timing meant as we built the new house the old one did not sell, so we let it.  So slightly different situation but it got us out of a situation and it all worked out.

 

The lesson from being in the rental business for nearly 20 years was don't assume a property is always a liquid asset.  Selling the flat took months as the market had crashed.  And likewise don't assume it will always be boom time as sometimes tenants took a while to find.  It is not just a cash cow.

[Pocster]

Councils response 

 

Thank you for your emails

 

I have taken into account the provision of insulation at the property and based on what is present the rating carried out still indicated a hazard was present as there was insufficient insulation to the property. If the roof space to the main building is insulated to the building regulations standard and the roof of the loft rooms are confirmed to meet the same standard, then the risk of harm will be reduced to a safe level . Though you could look to insulate walls in the property we did not ask for this as it is often a more difficult procedure and often produces smaller benefits compared to sufficient loft insulation. However, you can suggest other methods of compliance and these will be considered.

 

We have given a required U-value of 0.16 to meet a safe standard and this can be achieved through a range of different products however when using standard fibre insulation this translates to around 275mm of loft insulation. However, you may use different methods if this is preferable and the manufacturer or seller of the product should have certification to show the u-value provided which can be used to evidence the improvements to meet the required standard.

[Redbeard]

@Pocster, could you post a cross-section of the attic room and the voids surrounding it? If there is, for example, an apex void and reasonably-sized eaves voids it might just be possible to stuff  but not too (tight!) them ridiculously full of mineral wool (500-600mm?!) so as to get a weighted average of 0.16W/m2K.

 

 

[Pocster]

14 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

@Pocster, could you post a cross-section of the attic room and the voids surrounding it? If there is, for example, an apex void and reasonably-sized eaves voids it might just be possible to stuff  but not too (tight!) them ridiculously full of mineral wool (500-600mm?!) so as to get a weighted average of 0.16W/m2K.

 

 

But that only be the external walls . Only 1 side is accessible anyway . Chat has computed that the average of the room is 0.18U - so not exactly a million miles away 

[Redbeard]

Are we at cross-purposes? I am talking about insulation in roof voids, on the flat, not walls.

[Pocster]

You can’t get any further insulation in the roof . I had a new roof put on it and pir was put in it . Insulating further internally will lower the ceiling height too much . Roof is sloped no flat 

Edited June 24 by Pocster

[ProDave]

This is the thin end of the wedge.  It highlights what to do with old houses to upgrade them and who pays.

 

At the moment, it is only landlords being made to comply.  Perhaps those that set the rules think landlords have bottomless bank balances and have worked out how to defy physics and fir more insulation than there is space, while not disrupting the lives of the tenant living there.

 

There have been discussions, certainly in Scotland that these minimum standards will apply to home owners as well.  Though quite what they will do if a private owner has an EPC worse than C and does not have the means to improve it.

 

All it has done for me is confirm not being a LL is the correct choice, and if I were ever looking to move (unlikely) then I would expect a house worse than EPC C to be valued as a renovation project and valued lower to reflect the cost of the work needed.

[Pocster]

I emailed the council ( honestly, accurately and angrily ) . Stating it’s near as possible technically to meeting part L 0.16 . I cannot feasibly do anymore in a 1900 house . Accept this or I’ll evict all the tenants and sell .

No point going in soft as the mistress says … 

[Pocster]

But you’ll like the other minor things 

 

Suddenly the microwave/combo oven isn’t large enough - must be 27L minimum apparently NOW . What’s that smell ? - oh yeah BS

 

oh and the free standing kitchen worktops need to be bolted to the wall NOW . They are muver (expletive deleted) heavy - it ain’t gonna move .

 

all 1st floor windows must have restraints so they can’t ’accidentally’ be opened fully and presumably people jump out NOW

 

Been like that for 25 yrs with an hmo inspection every 5 yrs and never mentioned .

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

This is the thin end of the wedge.  It highlights what to do with old houses to upgrade them and who pays.

 

At the moment, it is only landlords being made to comply.  Perhaps those that set the rules think landlords have bottomless bank balances and have worked out how to defy physics and fir more insulation than there is space, while not disrupting the lives of the tenant living there.

 

There have been discussions, certainly in Scotland that these minimum standards will apply to home owners as well.  Though quite what they will do if a private owner has an EPC worse than C and does not have the means to improve it.

 

All it has done for me is confirm not being a LL is the correct choice, and if I were ever looking to move (unlikely) then I would expect a house worse than EPC C to be valued as a renovation project and valued lower to reflect the cost of the work needed.

 

If i put my cynical hat on, id say the government will force you to upgrade, but if you cant afford it, they will "lend" you the money, payable if you sell or when you die. The latter would allow the government to aquire the house. And sell it to "chums".

 

 

 

 

[Roger440]

8 hours ago, ProDave said:

I have said before, sell up and retire.  Being a LL is not worth it these days.  Let someone else have the "fun" of upgrading that to the required standard.

 

What Dave said up there ^^^^^

 

What i did.

 

You cant win against government.

[Temp]

Presumably the loft room is being let as a bedroom? 

 

 

[Pocster]

8 hours ago, Temp said:

Presumably the loft room is being let as a bedroom? 

 

 

Yep