4 Vs 5 Terminal dual-rate meter confusion

[bernardgreen]

but the inspector's reasoning seems flawed

but all his boxes have to be ticked.........

 

[flameport]

There are minimum standards to be reached, but just making electricity more expensive is not a solution to anything.

If storage heaters existed and they were on single rate electricity, changing to E7 would be the obvious choice.
That will do nothing for the actual energy consumption but would make it cheaper.

The real problem is likely to be that the property has no installed heating - tenants using electric fan heaters really could not be any worse.

 

[SUNRAY]

As a small time landlord, I will add in that it is probably easier to make small changes to the property than it is to change to yet another agent. I currently have one property without an agent and two agents for the rest and I'm finding they tend to insist that recommendations are fulfilled just to cover their own arses.
Insurance companies also do the same thing.

One of the 'in' things that crops up on agents inspections now is plastic CU's, even though the agents are not electrically qualified of course.

 

[JohnW2]

The real problem is likely to be that the property has no installed heating - tenants using electric fan heaters really could not be any worse.

Indeed so - and, as we've all said, making the electricity more expensive is not going to improve that situation (quite the opposite!). However, even with no installed heating, I was not aware that anyone (let alone an agent) could insist on any action in response to a recommendation to improve that situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As a small time landlord, I will add in that it is probably easier to make small changes to the property than it is to change to yet another agent.

That's probably true, and my comment about changing agents was a bit tongue-in-cheek. However, I would like to think that if I were the landlord, I would be reticent to make 'a small change', the only effect of which would be that my tenants would get higher electricity bills.

I currently have one property without an agent and two agents for the rest and I'm finding they tend to insist that recommendations are fulfilled just to cover their own arses. Insurance companies also do the same thing.

Indeed. However, in any walk of life, the idea of an 'agent' is that they act for, and in the best interests of, their clients. That obviously includes making the client aware of any 'mandatory' requirements, but I don't think it should include insisting on (or even quibbling about) things that are not required. House buyers or tenants may moan about such things, but the agent is meant to be working for the seller or landlord.

One of the 'in' things that crops up on agents inspections now is plastic CU's, even though the agents are not electrically qualified of course.

I wonder if we will soon start seeing comments about "17th ed Amd3 CUs", once we are in the era of "the 18th"?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed so - and, as we've all said, making the electricity more expensive is not going to improve that situation (quite the opposite!). However, even with no installed heating, I was not aware that anyone (let alone an agent) could insist on any action in response to a recommendation to improve that situation.

AIUI he isn't "insisting" on it - he has carried out an evaluation, and rated the property as Band F.

And has advised his client on a way to get it into Band E. Which is something he has to do if he wants to be allowed to rent the property.

He is telling us that it is close to the entry level for Band E, and that the inspector has said that if he changes the electricity tariff it will cross the threshold and enter Band E.

My property is a few points below the minimum band E for rental properties and there are no easy fixes left before we run into expensive changes. He said since EPC is based on energy COST not energy USE switching to an eco7 meter would swing things in my favour, a loophole of sorts.

Which, as we are all agreed, is barking mad, but I don't think any of us would argue that it cannot possibly be the reality on the grounds that no government would ever introduce rules which were barking mad.

He would have a choice to leave the property in Band F if he was going to sell it, but not if he wants to let it.

 

[JohnW2]

My property is a few points below the minimum band E for rental properties and there are no easy fixes left before we run into expensive changes.

I must confess that I'd missed that post ...

He said since EPC is based on energy COST not energy USE switching to an eco7 meter would swing things in my favour, a loophole of sorts.

As has been said, if that's true then it is barking mad. How on earth can increasing the energy cost make the property more acceptable for renting?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe it does in the minds of people who do not understand causality.

 

[plugwash]

As has been said, if that's true then it is barking mad. How on earth can increasing the energy cost make the property more acceptable for renting?

Accurately determining the running cost of a property in a fair manner is very difficult. You can look at the historical record of course but there are two problems with that, firstly it depends as much on the habits of the people occupying (or not) the property as the efficiency of the property itself. Secondly it will not reflect recent improvements to the property.

So the government specifies an estimation process based on a set of rules. Those rules will undoutablly be flawed and there will almost certainly be cases where an action that is counterproductive with regards to the property's actual efficiency improves the score by the rules.

 

[plugwash]

I'm getting confusion from Siemens about whether I need a 4 terminal or 5. They had thought I need 5 which they have none in stock. They keep asking me about storage heaters and water immersion. I don't actually know if my hot water is immersion or not as I am not local to the property.

What exactly is the extra terminal for, given the whole supply switches rates rather than one circuit being low-rate, etc? Can anyone explain what this all means?

The extra terminal is a switched output that you can use to connect loads that you want to operate during the off-peak period. Normally this would be done through a second consumer unit which would feed the storage heaters and the "full tank" immersion heater.

If you have a 4-terminal meter you (or your tenants) will have to rely on your own timers to turn stuff on during the off-peak period. The problem is your timers can get out of sync with theirs which can lead to inadvertant use of peak electricity.

 

[EFLImpudence]

My car goes too fast if I do not adjust the throttle pedal.

 

[JohnW2]

Accurately determining the running cost of a property in a fair manner is very difficult. You can look at the historical record of course but there are two problems with that, firstly it depends as much on the habits of the people occupying (or not) the property as the efficiency of the property itself. Secondly it will not reflect recent improvements to the property. So the government specifies an estimation process based on a set of rules. Those rules will undoutablly be flawed and there will almost certainly be cases where an action that is counterproductive with regards to the property's actual efficiency improves the score by the rules.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less crazy that the rules are apparently such that,in the situation we are discussing, the assessed 'energy efficiency' can improve when the only change has been an increase in the electricity bills. Insisting on change to a dual-rate tariff AND installation of storage heaters would be a different matter, but that does not appear to be what we are talking about.

Furthermore, as I and others observed a while back, it's doubly crazy, in that one would imagine that the first thing a sensible tenant would do (faced with the OP's changes) would be to change back to a single-rate tariff, in order to reduce their electricity bills!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So the government specifies an estimation process based on a set of rules. Those rules will undoutablly be flawed and there will almost certainly be cases where an action that is counterproductive with regards to the property's actual efficiency improves the score by the rules.

This is, IMO, a likely explanation:

Someone with insufficient understanding looked at the data for a number of houses and saw that electrically heated ones spent less on electricity with an E7 tariff than ones with a single-rate.

Ergo, if a house is electrically heated, switching to E7 will reduce the bills.

Simples.

 

[plugwash]

Yeah, sounds like the line of thinking that would lead to such a rule.

 

[JohnW2]

Yeah, sounds like the line of thinking that would lead to such a rule.

I agree that that is probably how it came about, but to incompetently create such a rule which, however well-meaning, can result in increased costs for those already financial disadvantaged (those having to live in accommodation with no installed heating) is verging on the criminal, and certainly immoral.

Kind Regards, John