HIPS Energy Certificates for buy to let NOW

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    sportingdad, You didn't need to tell us this was from the Torygraph. It's obvious!!

    Originally posted by Sportingdad View Post
    What next, thank god Labour are on their way out after reading this in the telegraph.



    Buy-to-let investors will face another "tax" on their properties from next year, it emerged last night.

    They will have to pay several hundred pounds for compulsory energy performance certificates, which are already a key component of the controversial Home Information Packs.
    As people get more aware and less sheep-like, energy ratigns will become an increasingly important selling-point. How much it costs to keep your home warm and functioning IS important. Especially because the Torygraph is full of letters from oldies (living in Flange or wherever) complaining about the cost of maintaining a sauna-like atmosphere at home year-round. I would have thought a responsible newspaper would support a scheme like that.

    Around 850,000 people own buy-to-let properties, many of which have been bought to augment their pensions.
    Can you hear the violins playing? Appealing to their core audience? What does that imply? They've been let down by the govt before, and now they are beign squeezed again?

    They have already been hit with extra red tape this year with a scheme that requires them to give their tenants' deposits to a third party for safekeeping.
    Imagine the horror! Landlords have to hand over the deposits to a disinterested party for safekeeping! You mean, like thye have in other countries, where both parties don't have to deal with these things personally?

    Experts said last night that buy-to-let landlords would be forced to employ qualified energy inspectors to give their properties an energy rating between A and G.
    FORCED? Same way you're forced to employ a gardener? Or a roofer? Or a carpetfitter?

    The certificates would likely cost around £200 and could require renewal as often as every three years,
    Review the rating, as energy-efficiency improves with new technology? Why would you want to do that? "It was good enough in my day, when women knew their place....". Something tells me a review/renewal would not cost the same as the initial certificate. But that rag forgot to mention that. Odd.

    adding considerably to the financial and administrative burden of renting out a property.
    Well, they've removed the burden of holding on to the deposit. Plus if you consider a three-yearly certificate to be a BURDEN, then how can you manage to own your car? Insurance? Gas safety cert? Maybe living independently is too much of a burden if people cannot manage those BURDENS , let alone owning BTL property.

    Home Information Packs become compulsory for any house put on the market after June 1. However, they have been widely criticised due to fears that there would not be enough qualified inspectors to carry out energy inspections and that they would not speed up the house-buying process.
    What, so the Torygraph's beloved model of supply-and-demand failed to produce enough trained HIP inspectors to meet the expected demand?

    Homeowners are already beginning to put properties on the market in order to avoid the cost of Home Information Packs before the deadline. The packs could cost up to £600, once the cost of the energy certificate, legal searches and other documents is included.
    So, people who already wanted to sell, are having to now go to the drastic measures of ..... selling? Wow, welcome to Desperateville.

    The Government has been criticised by the House of Lords for including energy certificates in the Home Information Packs. Under European law, energy inspections are required every 10 years, but they will be carried out far more frequently in the UK because of their inclusion in the packs.
    So the criticism is that we will have to review how wasteful we are MORE FREQUENTLY than is strictly required by the EU? How punitive! I only check my oil and brakes every 10,000 miles, as recommended by the manufacturer. I don't check before a long journey or anything, and I certainly don't have a look every now and then. I'm too lazy to do anything but the bare minimum required by law. What a clever way to live!

    A Government spokesman said that it was looking at energy certificates on rental property also being carried out more frequently than every 10 years, because it believed that this would make rental homes more energy efficient.
    So now it's not every three years, but every ten years? Alarmist or what?

    "The landlord does not pay the heating bills in most homes he rents out," he said.
    Yeah, money IS god, right? Nothing else matters.
    terrible misinformation.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by ChrisG View Post
      Hi Diane,
      Obviously I am new to this forum and it is always good to get other veiwpoints etc. so nice to meet you all so to speak.

      By itself an Energy Performance Certificate is not a good comparison I agree but should it come with a Home Condition Report as part of the HIP it would be close.

      However a low rating would indicate high running costs eg old type boiler, little or no insulation in the roof, missing or old hw cylinder jacket, stone or solid brick contruction with large areas of heat loss walls, no D/G etc and having found the perfect rental property I would be loath to miss out on it. However in the real world of renting and letting I would be extremely lucky to find that property and would no doubt have to compromise. However close the property was to my ideal I would still expect a responsible landlord to address the shortcomings of the Certificate and rent to me a property which came up to a standard which most people would expect both for environmental reasons and for my pocket as I could be losing hundreds of pounds p.a. as I tried to heat my home. I welcome this move by government to try to impose minimum standards on an unregulated industry.

      It would not cost the landlord to much as no doubt he/she could offset against tax, claim grants etc.

      I have seen many rental properties in which I wouldnt keep my dog with landlords asking disproportionate rents for and anything which raises standards has to be welcome from all sides.

      I also have no doubt that the government hope that pressure from potential buyers/tenants will over time bring about change and help achieve some of the targets they have set in reducing emissions. which will be a good thing for all of us.
      Hello Chris, welcome aboard!

      We all do have different points of view, as you mentioned, which makes these debates all the more interesting. Enjoy!

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by ChrisG View Post
        Hi Diane,
        Obviously I am new to this forum and it is always good to get other veiwpoints etc. so nice to meet you all so to speak...
        ... which will be a good thing for all of us.
        LOL that's what i was tryign to say!

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        Working...
        X