Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Longtermrenter

Dodgy Letting Agents - no knowledge of new EPC requirements

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rantnrave said:

You're still listed as a New Member.

I think there is a separate thread, possibly in a different part of the site, to request an upgrade.

I can't even post in that section - it is greyed out!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fru-gal said:

I'm assuming you're joking?

If not, it's not very British to rent out substandard properties to exploit poor and vulnerable tenants and dodge your legal duties (unless you consider Peter Rachman, a British icon to be aspired to)?

Rachman was just the upstanding member of British society I thought of too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about an Energy Efficiency rating of G and if they spend lots of money then they might raise it to F. Environmental Impact would stay at G though!

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-45163890.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a member of staff get rejected for a letting....silly fees etc.  The sooner they get banned the better.

Noticed the property was not up to scratch on the EPC.... they where fobbed off.

I called them and got a refund as how can you apply for a property that was never fit to rent in the first place.

Sadly the average user of this forum commenting on their coffee breaks have more knowledge than some who actually work as agents.

 

Share this post


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

Had a member of staff get rejected for a letting....silly fees etc.  The sooner they get banned the better.

Noticed the property was not up to scratch on the EPC.... they where fobbed off.

I called them and got a refund as how can you apply for a property that was never fit to rent in the first place.

Sadly the average user of this forum commenting on their coffee breaks have more knowledge than some who actually work as agents.

 

Brilliant - hope you reported them to local authority too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fromage Frais said:

Had a member of staff get rejected for a letting....silly fees etc.  The sooner they get banned the better.

Noticed the property was not up to scratch on the EPC.... they where fobbed off.

I called them and got a refund as how can you apply for a property that was never fit to rent in the first place.

 

Oh, result! Bravo! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our rental has electric ceiling heating with no timer and a broken thermostat (or dodgy wire somewhere). It's either off or 40 degrees. I don't use it as I'm scared I'll forget to turn it off (massive bills or even a fire). Would an EPC reflect that?

The landlord wants to put the rent up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sausage said:

Our rental has electric ceiling heating with no timer and a broken thermostat (or dodgy wire somewhere). It's either off or 40 degrees. I don't use it as I'm scared I'll forget to turn it off (massive bills or even a fire). Would an EPC reflect that?

The landlord wants to put the rent up too.

It should do but I personally don't trust an EPC as far as you could throw it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2018 at 12:14, Longtermrenter said:

Saw this:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-68114953.html

Now withdrawn from Rightmove but brochure still available. Spoke to the agent http://laingbennett.co.uk/ and asked if it had an exemption as the EPC was a G rating. She told me it didn't. I reminded her it was illegal to let a property with a rating below E and she told me in a very rude manner that I was incorrect and the law had not come into force yet. Reported to council who have actually replied and will investigate. She was head of lettings! Funny thing is this comes in for all tenancies by April 2020 - so far there are no recorded [penalties for breaches but doing my best to change this - they won't get penalised as it hasn't been let yet but nice to think they will get a phone call and feel a bit stupid (I imagine somehow she will still think she was right all along - pesky tenants - know thy place!)

 

Well done.  I wonder what the landlord will do now, sell or remedy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no point in bringing in new rules if they give exemptions (loopholes).  If you're a slumlord with a house that's got no loft insulation then just get three quotes for totally re-roofing it, claim that it's needed to improve it.  They'll all be over £3500, problem solved.

The same goes for heating systems, get quotes for some super dooper system that's way beyond what anyone would install, just ensure that it's over £3500 fitted then nothing has to be paid.

If that £3500 is a total for each house then it's a complete joke.  If any house has single glazing and needs a new heating system then it will be excluded.  If you're a few quid under just keep adding other jobs to the list until it goes over.

This is just yet another example of this government pretending that they're doing something while actually making no difference to anything.

There really isn't any need for exemptions, if it isn't suitable for letting then sell it to someone who wants to invest in making it habitable.

Edited by Tes Tickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tes Tickle said:

if it isn't suitable for letting then sell it to someone who wants to invest in making it habitable. 

Therein lies the problem for people who live in rental properties with inaccurate or non existent EPCs.

I rented a Victorian terrace for many years and the winters were a trial but I was happy there most of the time.

I put up with a couple of severe winters thanks to being healthy, having grown up in the days of coal fires anyway, and I paid over the top for gas bills, used electric blankets and extra layers of clothing. I even bought a couple of rolls of loft insulation at the B and Q sale to shove over the existing stuff which was not fit for purpose.

Ridiculous in this day and age, but I put up with it because it ticked many boxes 1.the area was good 2.rent was cheap and 3.neighbours great, no noise from next door.

Grassing up the landlord  would have led to me either getting a steep rent rise or getting a 2 month notice and him putting it on the market, and for the same money per month I would be left in a crap part of town in a 1 bed tiny modern [energy efficient] studio flat listening to next doors TV/ sound sytem booming through the party wall.

The only way to enforce the EPC is by having inspectors check at random.

Edited by frankief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see the problem with a subset of houses becoming unrentable, looking at the big picture.  If they're not rented out then they won't be knocked down, they'll be sold to someone else to live there, removing one house and one otherwise tenant from circulation so having a net effect of nothing.  In theory, you could have rented the better quality house that this housebuyer would have rented, so would have ended up with a better quality house.

I also don't have a problem with homeowners living in draughty or otherwise knackered houses.  That's their choice, they can either put up with it, invest in improving it, sell it or even knock it down and build something better on the land.

What I really have a problem is the situation you describe - where you ended up spending your own money on high bills and improving their house as well as paying rent - this is madness.

A good proportion of houses are simply not suitable for renting.  These sort of laws should enforce this, but it seems that the government has (probably intentionally) slipped in a loophole that means that vast numbers of slumlords can just carry on as usual.  Just the usual lip service while not rocking the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tes Tickle said:

There's no point in bringing in new rules if they give exemptions (loopholes).  If you're a slumlord with a house that's got no loft insulation then just get three quotes for totally re-roofing it, claim that it's needed to improve it.  They'll all be over £3500, problem solved.

The same goes for heating systems, get quotes for some super dooper system that's way beyond what anyone would install, just ensure that it's over £3500 fitted then nothing has to be paid.

If that £3500 is a total for each house then it's a complete joke.  If any house has single glazing and needs a new heating system then it will be excluded.  If you're a few quid under just keep adding other jobs to the list until it goes over.

This is just yet another example of this government pretending that they're doing something while actually making no difference to anything.

There really isn't any need for exemptions, if it isn't suitable for letting then sell it to someone who wants to invest in making it habitable.

Very true.

If the exemption is there to "protect" landlords from facing extortion by tenants who demand the earth (or anything like that) then the exemption should be based on a % of the rent. Then they won't have to go and fiddle the numbers every year for inflation (except they like having to do that because it makes great job creation for loony govt pencil pushers).

If it is about % of rent then the bigger houses (on balance probably charging more rent) which have bigger footprint and would cost more form new (larger number of) windows etc etc etc

A randomly chosen 'max' like this makes it pretty obvious thatit is either:

i) not thought out OR

ii) a badly disguised loophole to pander to the PRS-sector string-pullers OR

iii) both

These govt officials are either idiots or pawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, but having no upper limit at all is the only sensible way.  Otherwise landlords will just be creative about the amount of work needed to ensure the limit is reached, so they don't have to spend anything.

If this meant that a small proportion of houses were no longer rentable then that would be absolutely fine.  Nobody would be evicted over it, as it would only apply when the house is vacant and needs a new tenant.

It has all the signs of being an intentional loophole, keeping the landlords unaffected while trying to persuade tenants that they're on their side.  They're cynically trying to be everyone's friend, but instead just annoying everyone instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is - if my understanding is correct, which is that a landlord does not have to spend £3500 before he stops having to spend any more.  He only needs to prove that he would need to spend £3500, once this is shown then he needs to spend all of £0.  So there's an obvious financial incentive to get high quotes for work that's sort-of related but not necessary.

Perhaps a spending limit of £3500 (or a proportion of rent) would be a better idea.  The landlord would have to prove that he'd actually spent over £3500 on trying to improve efficiency before being allowed to rent it out at a lower band.  Perhaps this £3500 limit could be re-applied annually too, or on each tenancy renewal - hopefully at some point it would then get up to spec.  Or, if it's a no-hoper money-pit, it could just be sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.