Posted by: @transparent

↑

That depends on how much the prospective customers know about the number of heat-pump installations which fail or are sub-optimal.

I'll suggest that the slow-down in the number of installations is heavily due to us all now knowing a neighbour, family member or work colleague who's heat-pump journey has been an expensive nightmare. And yet they've been sent a letter from the LPA stating that it complies with Building Regs.

The £500 is at a level where it's cheaper than the costs of battling to get a poor installation put right.

If you have been put off you have been put off, and the issue wont arise.  The inspection applies only to people who have has a heat pump installed and after it you still have to battle!

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Eeek! If your LPA doesn't have Building Control staff that can check and implement these regulations, then it needs drawing to the attention of Elected Members.

 

Noted!  You can choose your supplier of building regs so it maybe that some do, some dont!

Posted by: @transparent

↑

As an example, the LPA needs to consider whether it should continue running ECO4 (or its later successor) if the work cannot be checked as compliant with Building Regs.

 

I agree, although in practice its difficult for them not to.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

I'm not yet convinced that any extra money needs to be found in order to ensure people are actually doing what they're paid for!

 

Im not at all convinced that more money will help, whether or not its 'needed'!  But at the same time I remain conscious that the construction industry is beset with recurring quality problems so the inescapable fact is that people don't always do what they are paid for whether its heat pumps, insulation or cladding for tall buildings. 

It may be that we just have to accept that this is how the construction industry is (which is certainly my personal experience over several decades).  Because I accept that this is how the construction industry is, I make a point of getting educated about any construction work I am involved in.  Even that doesnt fully protect me, I was scammed by a roofer just three years ago.

However it wasn't me that raised the idea of a survey, it was @jeff, who made the valid point that some people dont want to get educated.  Perhaps there is no solution for them!

For most vulnerable and poor people you need to be talking to their landlord, who increasingly is a large mostly US venture capital fund who a) doesn't care and b) considers that their primary duty is to make money and it's for government to force standards by legislation and for them to then game those standards to comply as cheaply as possible.

The move to require a minimum EPC and to tie that EPC to a new EPC scheme and to carbon emissions is broken in various ways but it's IMHO the only thing that will fix private landlords. More relevantly though it means for many people the discussion about "what to do about poor people" is actually "what to do about rich landlords", and regulation, enforcement and a large stick as you are discussing is IMHO totally relevant to that .

Social housing is a bit more amenable to action and a lot of social housing folks are trying to balance costs and low energy bills in newbuilds they control (newbuilds by companies in order to fulfill planning requirements are a lost cause). Councils obviously do have significant control of their own stock (but no money to fix it).

ECO4 is unfixable though, the fundamental economic design of the scheme is broken.

"Let's remember that LPA is issuing these Letters of Compliance anyway."

so do an FoI for the relevant qualifications of the person who issued the LoC, how many they issue a day and via GDPR for the records they used to reach that specific decision. That's about the first thing I imagine you'd be doing as discovery if it were a court case.

Posted by: @etchedpixels

↑

For most vulnerable and poor people you need to be talking to their landlord, who increasingly is a large mostly US venture capital fund who a) doesn't care and b) considers that their primary duty is to make money and it's for government to force standards by legislation and for them to then game those standards to comply as cheaply as possible.

The move to require a minimum EPC and to tie that EPC to a new EPC scheme and to carbon emissions is broken in various ways but it's IMHO the only thing that will fix private landlords. More relevantly though it means for many people the discussion about "what to do about poor people" is actually "what to do about rich landlords", and regulation, enforcement and a large stick as you are discussing is IMHO totally relevant to that .

Hmm.  Very cynical, but I tend to agree!  

Posted by: @etchedpixels

↑

"Let's remember that LPA is issuing these Letters of Compliance anyway."

so do an FoI for the relevant qualifications of the person who issued the LoC, how many they issue a day and via GDPR for the records they used to reach that specific decision. That's about the first thing I imagine you'd be doing as discovery if it were a court case.

That could be interesting to find out: how many dwellings are covered by LoC letters per council officer per day.