EPC obligations

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

    EPC obligations

    When EPC’s became a legal requirement from 1 Oct 2008 they were not needed for tenants who were ‘in occupation’ before that date and continued to rent after that date.

    I had a 12 month TA that started before the EPC date in the name of a single tenant and half way through the year (after 1 Oct 2008) he left and two remaining co-habitants verbally agreed to take over the tenancy and started paying the rent in full. The departing tenant did not sign anything or hand over keys to me on leaving.

    At the end of the12 month TA the two remaining tenants signed a new 12 month TA (and are still in residence), but I did not get an EPC done as at the time as I considered them to have been ‘in occupation’ before the EPC date even though they weren’t named on the original tenancy (but took it over after 1 Oct 2008).

    In light of the impending legislation on S21 possessions would this count as failing to comply with EPC obligations?

    #2
    Originally posted by coggie View Post
    In light of the impending legislation on S21 possessions
    Could you point me in the direction of those please?
    "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

    What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Wannadonnadoodah View Post
      Could you point me in the direction of those please?
      I think Coggie means this;

      21A Compliance with prescribed legal requirements
      (1) A notice under subsection (1) or (4) of section 21 may not be given in
      relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in
      England at a time when the landlord is in breach of a prescribed
      requirement.
      (2) The requirements that may be prescribed are requirements imposed on
      landlords by any enactment and which relate to—
      (a) the condition of dwelling-houses or their common parts,
      (b) the health and safety of occupiers of dwelling-houses, or
      (c) the energy performance of dwelling-houses.

      Comment


        #4
        oooch, I can see section 21 being as 'unreliable' as section 8 for eviction with all those spurious claims of landlord wrong-doing. Thanks boletus for posting that - I can tell I will have to do a lot of studying to get back to speed

        Comment


          #5
          Here's the rest of it, under 'housing and development'.
          You'll probably find the 4 month time limit on section 21 of interest.
          I'm sure you will spot the obvious ways this will be abused by rogue tenants.
          If it comes in- it has not been passed yet.


          http://www.publications.parliament.u...0095/15095.pdf

          Comment


            #6
            This article suggests this will become law on 30 March.

            http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/d...e-regulations#

            Has anyone got any suggestions to my original question relating to whether occupants in-situ taking over a tenancy that started before the EPC requirement date (but taking it over after the EPC requirement date) would need to have an EPC issued?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by coggie View Post
              This article suggests this will become law on 30 March.

              http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/d...e-regulations#

              Has anyone got any suggestions to my original question relating to whether occupants in-situ taking over a tenancy that started before the EPC requirement date (but taking it over after the EPC requirement date) would need to have an EPC issued?
              I don't know. Is it a hardship to get a (pointless IMO) EPC in place to cover yourself anyway?
              "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

              What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

              Comment


                #8
                There's unlikely to be a definitive answer.

                The bill isn't yet law, and the precise wording will need to be tested in court.
                If the final bill uses a loose term like "occupant" then I'd suspect your example would meet the criteria.
                If is uses more sensible terminology like "tenant" it won't.

                You should have an EPC anyway, so just get one done.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  You should have an EPC anyway, so just get one done.
                  Additionally should all landlords issue a Section 21 notice now 'just in case' it is thought malicious to do so after and if this law is passed? (Sorry going slightly off topic here.)



                  Freedom at the point of zero............

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Seems a fair question.

                    If you plan on not having gas safety certificates and EPCs, it might be prudent.
                    If you think your tenants are likely to try and abuse the proposed complaints process to avoid eviction, it probably is prudent.
                    Lots of people have issued s21 notices with tenancy agreements routinely (and probably wrongly) for ages.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Don't forget if that proposal becomes law, anyone with an F or G property will need to evict their tenant before 2018. You'll need to do whatever's necessary to get it to an E & have it re-assessed. Otherwise you'll be stuck with the tenant for good.

                      In view of the requirement to upgrade at tenant's request from 2015, it might even be prudent now.
                      To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Interlaken View Post
                        Additionally should all landlords issue a Section 21 notice now 'just in case' it is thought malicious to do so after and if this law is passed? (Sorry going slightly off topic here.)
                        See;

                        41 Application of sections 33 to 40
                        (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a provision of sections 33 to 40 applies only
                        to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England granted on or
                        after the day on which the provision comes into force.
                        (2) Subject to subsection (3), a provision of sections 33 to 40 does not apply to an
                        assured shorthold tenancy that came into being under section 5(2) of the
                        Housing Act 1988 after the commencement of that provision and on the
                        coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy that was granted before the
                        commencement of that provision.
                        (3) At the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into force of
                        a provision of sections 33 to 38 or section 40, that provision also applies to any
                        assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England—
                        (a) which is in existence at that time, and
                        (b) to which that provision does not otherwise apply by virtue of
                        subsection (1) or (2).
                        My reading of that is that any tenancy already in place (periodic or fixed term) is exempt for 3 years.
                        It is a golden window of opportunity to put your house(s) in order.

                        IMO, it was put in as an appeaser to landlords in order to get this through.
                        If they had realised how easily landlords have laid back and taken this, it wouldn't have been included at all.

                        That is just my interpretation, please make your own mind up.

                        What I have been/will be doing in the next 3 years (should it happen) is getting rid of any tenants less than A1.
                        The (few) properties that cannot attract that calibre of tenant will be sold off.
                        I won't be renewing any fixed terms, all will go periodic.
                        Some suitable properties will go to student type lets where the tenancy is finite.
                        New tenancies will have increased safeguards.
                        I am already cautious about tenant selection but I'll be stepping it up a notch- 3 day rigorous selection process including medical, fitness, phrenology, IQ testing, role play, DNA, family history, school reports etc.
                        Talking to past landlords will be a must with particular attention to any history of claimed retaliatory eviction.
                        I'm also taking further precautions, although entirely legal, I don't want to disclose on an open forum.

                        Hopefully during the 3 year window, the disastrous consequences of this will become apparent and common sense will prevail.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Oh, one (slightly humourous) unintended consequence of the law about reasonable improvements just struck me:

                          Can you imagine a property that you let with low energy bulbs to get an E rating? Tenant replaces them with incandescent bulbs every time they blow for cheapness, and then asks you to upgrade the property again.
                          To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Anyone with an F or G property (10% of rental stock apparently) should probably get rid of it TBH.
                            I'd be looking hard at anything that's E, myself.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              Anyone with an F or G property (10% of rental stock apparently) should probably get rid of it TBH.
                              I'd be looking hard at anything that's E, myself.
                              Ah, it's annoying. Most of mine that are F, would be a C if I replaced the storage heaters with gas central heating. (The storage heaters I bought them for, so that I would not have to have central heating serviced!)
                              To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X