Council’s demands .

[saveasteading]

I've encountered several crooked epc 'consultants'.

What rating do you need?

Under questioning, disguised as naive chat, it was clear that they were genuinely ignorant of the science and building practicalities. I did wonder where they emerged from?

 

They did not like real construction info either. I think they had bought or rented a very, very primitive assessment template.  Is the wall single skin, double skin or cavity., insulated or not. And so on.

I had one that we told we had upgraded a party wall.....not interested....went down as single skin with plaster both sides.

 

So we got a C that would have been B.

C is good enough for anyone he responded. 

I'm pretty sure he would have changed tick boxes to get us a C whatever.

 

My suspicion is that many a rental has such a fraudulent certification.

 

I would never conciously use them, but am not in need of them either.

 

I don't blame the councils. They are being tricked as much as anyone.

If I was still involved in the industry I would be meeting builders,  bco and other officers at council workshops...i always found most of them to be interested....but I'm not.

 

Cheating is bad, but so are stupid rules. Shop around?

 

[Redbeard]

41 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

They did not like real construction info either. I think they had bought or rented a very, very primitive assessment template.

 

That's RD SAP for you! Vague data in; vague data out, plus the way in which EPC assessment was marketed as a money-making opportunity - 'Full-time wages for part-time work' was one of the mantras at the time. I did not believe it because I had seen a similar set of circumstances with (inland waterways) Boat Safety Examiners. A race to the bottom in terms of price and quality. There are still many EPC assessors who want to do a thorough job, but the early (and probably continuing - I don't know) over-supply of assessors meant that prices were forced down to a ridiculously low level.

 

You are right about not liking (and I would add 'not being able to recognise') real construction. I wrote to the certification body of one assessor who did not recognise EWI in spite of all the 'clues'. I told them I was baffled. 'So are we'! They explained that they give all the necessary info in the training, and offer a help-line in case of doubt. To be fair you probably don't have to be a building professional to be a good EPC assessor, but you do have to have, or develop during your training, a proper *understanding* of buildings and of what may have been done to them during their lives, so that you can make an intelligent 'stab' at what is 'beneath the skin'

[Tetrarch]

This instruction from the council will oblige you to sacrifice your loft room  as one of your lettable spaces

15 hours ago, Pocster said:

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 

 

How much extra PIR do you actually need?

 

Its a sloping roof - can you not just add thin PIR on the sides and then a thicker portion right at the apex to achieve what you need?

 

Regards

 

Tet

[Pocster]

9 minutes ago, Tetrarch said:

This instruction from the council will oblige you to sacrifice your loft room  as one of your lettable spaces

 

How much extra PIR do you actually need?

 

Its a sloping roof - can you not just add thin PIR on the sides and then a thicker portion right at the apex to achieve what you need?

 

Regards

 

Tet

The rooms boarded . So no access . Also this would reduce ceiling height and make the room below minimum size standards . The room is occupied .

[Iceverge]

Might you have forgotten that you put kooltherm in there instead of PIR.......🥷.

Say 50mm between the rafters and 80mm below.......

 

Also stupid rules. This would be easy to solve if everyone was allowed to simply bulldoze and rebuild their houses properly every 70 years. 

 

 

 

 

[Pocster]

No reply from council yet .

What this is ; is the same with planning and building regs . Minion wants something ( 0.16 ) , doesn’t understand it , doesn’t know how to achieve it , isn’t qualified in the subject .

I have a few cards left to play depending on their response .

A bit of kick back usually produces a result .

Edited June 26 by Pocster

[Mr Punter]

41 minutes ago, Pocster said:

A bit of kick back usually produces a result .

 

Umm I think you mean push back...

[Pocster]

13 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

 

Umm I think you mean push back...

Oops ! Yeah - no bribes 🤣

[Roger440]

On 25/06/2025 at 08:54, saveasteading said:

I've encountered several crooked epc 'consultants'.

What rating do you need?

Under questioning, disguised as naive chat, it was clear that they were genuinely ignorant of the science and building practicalities. I did wonder where they emerged from?

 

They did not like real construction info either. I think they had bought or rented a very, very primitive assessment template.  Is the wall single skin, double skin or cavity., insulated or not. And so on.

I had one that we told we had upgraded a party wall.....not interested....went down as single skin with plaster both sides.

 

So we got a C that would have been B.

C is good enough for anyone he responded. 

I'm pretty sure he would have changed tick boxes to get us a C whatever.

 

My suspicion is that many a rental has such a fraudulent certification.

 

I would never conciously use them, but am not in need of them either.

 

I don't blame the councils. They are being tricked as much as anyone.

If I was still involved in the industry I would be meeting builders,  bco and other officers at council workshops...i always found most of them to be interested....but I'm not.

 

Cheating is bad, but so are stupid rules. Shop around?

 

 

As more and more money hinges on epc rating, at least in the rented sector, the more corrupt it will become.

 

Now that BCO's have at least some responsibility for what they sign off, epc's are, essentially, the weakest link in the chain.

 

Its a market, that has no meaningful oversight. Just like building control has been for a long time. Pay money to the right person, get the result you want. And save 10's of thousands.

[Roger440]

7 hours ago, Iceverge said:

Might you have forgotten that you put kooltherm in there instead of PIR.......🥷.

Say 50mm between the rafters and 80mm below.......

 

Also stupid rules. This would be easy to solve if everyone was allowed to simply bulldoze and rebuild their houses properly every 70 years. 

 

 

 

 

 

Lets say you could just bulldoze your house, how could that ever work financially?

 

I did some very loose numbers on mine. It would cost for a similar sized dwelling at a basic level circa £300k. Probably a good deal more.

 

The current house, whilst a thermal disaster in many respects, is, essentially sound. Value, circa £400k.

 

If it made any kind of sense financially, id do it tommorow. But it doesnt, and as far as i can see, wont, ever.

 

Yes, id have a better house, but not £300k better.

 

Whilst planning is clearly, currently a block to such a thing occuring, even if removed, it would only ever be a niche thing for people for whom, money is no real object.

 

So, dont understand your thinking here.

 

Edited June 26 by Roger440

[ProDave]

To me knock down and rebuild only makes sense for really really derelict houses that are probably unmortgagable, and priced accordingly, or for a tiny house on a large plot where the buyer wants a large house and complete rebuild is usually better than a large extension to a small old house.

[saveasteading]

On 25/06/2025 at 11:47, Tetrarch said:

How much extra PIR do you actually need?

You could theoretically add a foot or so of pir to the wall and retain your headroom. 

[Tetrarch]

20 hours ago, saveasteading said:

You could theoretically add a foot or so of pir to the wall and retain your headroom. 

But he'd lose his floor space..... I was wondering whether you could take the walls in at the "shoulders", where the wall creases but then feather it so the floor remains unchanged

 

Regards

 

Tet

 

[Pocster]

1 hour ago, Tetrarch said:

But he'd lose his floor space..... I was wondering whether you could take the walls in at the "shoulders", where the wall creases but then feather it so the floor remains unchanged

 

Regards

 

Tet

 

It’s all BS . Remember the rooms occupied . The councils comments are shite . It’s an epc c but the roof ( or does he mean all the roofs ) most likely aren’t 0.16 - so like 90% of the hmo loft rooms in the city I presume ?

Part L allows for reason to be taken on age and viability of any alterations . Typically a loft room in a 1900 house ain’t going to have a lot of options .

I posted too see responses but also to show ( yet again ) how dumb / bs the council is . Yet to receive a reply to my latest email about 3 days ago . Like all regs unless absolute specific and a government forced condition e.g room sizes ; the council can use common sense if they have any . I’d be very surprised if I don’t get this buried right up their arse …

Edited June 27 by Pocster

[Pocster]

 

2. The EPC system doesn’t calculate exact U-values for compliance — it models performance based on default assumptions and basic visible inputs.
3. If you’re already meeting the EPC target, but are being told to improve individual U-values (like 0.16 for the roof), then:
   • The council is contradicting itself
   • They’re holding you to two different standards at once:
     • The overall EPC band, and
     • The specific U-value targets that most properties don’t even hit

 

Council nerd either:

 

• Doesn’t understand how EPCs and U-values actually work, or
• Is applying blanket criteria from some internal checklist without thinking critically

 

 

Either way, it’s not your job to retrofit beyond reason when:

 

• You’ve complied with past and present standards
• You’ve hit EPC C
• And any further upgrade is disproportionate, impractical, or impossible

 

[Pocster]

And so the walk back begins 

 

1. I would like to assure you that the building regulation is not being applied retrospectively, the assessment based on EPC evidence was undertaken using the housing health and safety assessment tool under the Housing Act 2004.  The schedule is requesting that loft insulation is improved as the most cost-effective energy efficiency improvement to reduce the risk.  The ideal score in these assessments is however based on the ideal which is comparable to buildings regulations when undertaking works.  I am reviewing the schedule item so that it better reflects the requirement to improve loft insulation.  A revised schedule and extended date will be issued later this week.

[marshian]

6 hours ago, Pocster said:

And so the walk back begins 

 

 

1. I would like to assure you that the building regulation is not being applied retrospectively, the assessment based on EPC evidence was undertaken using the housing health and safety assessment tool under the Housing Act 2004.  The schedule is requesting that loft insulation is improved as the most cost-effective energy efficiency improvement to reduce the risk.  The ideal score in these assessments is however based on the ideal which is comparable to buildings regulations when undertaking works.  I am reviewing the schedule item so that it better reflects the requirement to improve loft insulation.  A revised schedule and extended date will be issued later this week.

 

I bloody hate council idiots had enough experience of them in the past

 

I applied to extend house 2 storey extension on the back to replace a horrible single glazed glass conservatory that could be used for maybe 2 days a year most of spring summer and autumn too bloody hot and rest of the year too damn cold and got planning permission granted.

 

I had a back fence (usual 6 ft cant rail with featherboard) backing on to a turn round/visitor packing space in the cul-d-sac behind - Fence was 25 years old and rotten - I took a 10 ft section down to allow building materials to be delivered to the back of the property and used some heras fencing as a temp security measure.

 

I got a council complaint that the heras fencing was taller than 6 ft (alongside a highway) and could potentially restrict visibility (I sh*t you not - it's bloody open mesh!!!)

 

I dug a hole for the rubber feet and dropped the height to 6 ft - wrote them a letter and said all sorted fence is 6 ft now job done

 

All went quiet - I finished the building works and started re-instating the fence to be served with a notice that the fence cannot be more than 3 ft high due to proximity of the highway (Turn round space/visitor parking in a cul d sac remember)

 

I wrote back saying original fence installed by the builders was 6 ft - I'm just re-instating that and they were applying a rule regarding highway to my fence but not the two other gardens that also back on to this "highway"

 

I got another letter saying in the nicest council language that they did NGAS - because I had removed the 6ft fence now 3ft was the highest fence I could install (Making my garden very easy to access for any local toerag.)

 

So I did this which isn't a 6 ft fence

 

 

Honestly it's not

 

 

The council demanded a face to face meeting to discuss urgent resolution and I agreed to their request

 

Came round and we walked round the cul-d-sac together and measured it with me pointing out again it was not compliant

 

So I opened it

 

 

I'd already unlatched the other side

 

Because it wasn't a fence at all it was a feather board clad double gate and I said should anyone using the turn around / parking space find that their visibility is impaired I've had a sign made to say call at house XX and I'll open the gates................

 

Council lass clearly very very pissed about it but I never heard another more.

[ProDave]

^^^ It makes my blood boil that some councils waste so much time and money on stupid things like the above, and fail to do the things they should be doing.

[Pocster]

Because they can’t enforce part L they’ve stepped back a bit and are referencing 

 

https://www.cieh.org/media/3762/cieh-excess-cold-enforcement-guidance.pdf

 

I’ve got a card to play as my epc assessor will put in writing that the entire loft room meets an averaged U rating of 0.14 I.e exceeding their ‘want’ of 0.16