The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

super_davo · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
Would you want someone with that attitude as your landlord? As I've said on here a lot of times before, there are far too many 'property developers' out there who think it is money for old rope egged on by programmes like Homes Under The Hammer that make it seem like you buy a wreck at auction; chuck in a budget kitchen from Wickes, paint the walls and lay some grey carpets then watch the money roll in. If they aren't prepared to invest in basics like making the house energy efficient it makes you wonder what else they are skimping on.
Okay, but you do understand that if those people aren't landlords there will be less supply and higher rents, right?

I understand the point but also live in the real world.

I think the "less houses for rent = rent costs more" argument fails to recognise that the houses don't just disappear.

They will be sold, in many cases to an owner-occupier that was previously renting, which then reduces the demand for renting.

rjsterry · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
You know that on the one hand you've said it won't increase rents and on the other hand accepted that people will leave the market, reduce supply and push up rents?

You (and Pross) are industry specialists. You already know what to do and who to ask. Many landlords aren't going to get to that stage. You can scoff if you want and bang on about this just being the price of being a landlord, but that doesn't change the reality or the consequences.

And if you've had to deal with any trades as a private individual lately, you would have more empathy. Unregulated, unprofessional, unreliable low quality wankers, on the whole. With no immediate correlation between quality and price. The only decent tradesmen I've found in a decade or more up here haven't been British, but we've sent most of them home.

Given the choice between doing hand to hand combat woth your average British tradesman, and just cashing in, a lot of landlords will cash in.

Fine. They should mind the door doesn't smack them on the arse on the way out. It's a business not a hobby. The property is then going to be on the market. More property coming to the market is not going to increase prices.

I'm not sure your experience of living in a semi-deserted bit of Scotland provides a representative view of the availability or quality of tradesmen. Interesting that you argue for more regulation here, but not for landlords. Those with safety critical roles are already pretty closely regulated. Also, small point, if you are employing trades as a landlord you are employing them as a business not a private individual so no consumer protection applies.

focuszing723 · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:
Sadiq Khan has described the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) as the "best ever two-for-one offer", which tackles both air pollution and climate change.

London's mayor told an event in New York "if you deal with one, you deal with the other".

But his comments have been challenged by his Conservative and Liberal Democrat opponents.

They said the recent expansion to outer London is predicted to have a "negligible" impact on emissions.

That is because many people are changing from diesel to petrol cars, which emit more carbon dioxide.

Mr Khan told the Concordia business summit that his clear-air zone was "the classic best ever two-for-one offer you will ever receive".

"The same things that cause climate change, cause air pollution," he explained. "Nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon emissions. If you deal with one, you deal with the other."

But the Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey told BBC London ahead of his party's conference that Mr Khan's measures were not working.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66853628

The transatlantic London mayor eco tour.

Do you agree with the Liberal leader?
It doesn't help any debate to exaggerate or falsify. I think the link to emissions is made up, unless he is arguing that overall traffic volume will be reduced by ULEZ.

If not, and if it is nonsense - which I suspect it is - then it will also cast doubt on whatever he says about ULEZ that happens to be true.

It's another example of false justification IMO. Just tell it how it is and it would get them further.

I don't know, if Khan is in America banging the drum for London and the UK I'm pleased about that.

Pross · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
Would you want someone with that attitude as your landlord? As I've said on here a lot of times before, there are far too many 'property developers' out there who think it is money for old rope egged on by programmes like Homes Under The Hammer that make it seem like you buy a wreck at auction; chuck in a budget kitchen from Wickes, paint the walls and lay some grey carpets then watch the money roll in. If they aren't prepared to invest in basics like making the house energy efficient it makes you wonder what else they are skimping on.
Okay, but you do understand that if those people aren't landlords there will be less supply and higher rents, right?

I understand the point but also live in the real world.

Or the houses get bought up by other landlords. especially if they hae sitting tenants.

Not pushing landlords to provide pretty basic standards in their 'product' for fear that they might leave the market is a bit silly. Also, by not providing minimum efficiency standards they are already costing their tenants extra money. We accept that in most lines of business the person selling the product has to meet certain acceptable standards, why not with the person providing housing? There will have been similar arguments about cost and driving companies out of business everytime a new BS was introduced.

First.Aspect · September 2023

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
You know that on the one hand you've said it won't increase rents and on the other hand accepted that people will leave the market, reduce supply and push up rents?

You (and Pross) are industry specialists. You already know what to do and who to ask. Many landlords aren't going to get to that stage. You can scoff if you want and bang on about this just being the price of being a landlord, but that doesn't change the reality or the consequences.

And if you've had to deal with any trades as a private individual lately, you would have more empathy. Unregulated, unprofessional, unreliable low quality wankers, on the whole. With no immediate correlation between quality and price. The only decent tradesmen I've found in a decade or more up here haven't been British, but we've sent most of them home.

Given the choice between doing hand to hand combat woth your average British tradesman, and just cashing in, a lot of landlords will cash in.

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
You know that on the one hand you've said it won't increase rents and on the other hand accepted that people will leave the market, reduce supply and push up rents?

You (and Pross) are industry specialists. You already know what to do and who to ask. Many landlords aren't going to get to that stage. You can scoff if you want and bang on about this just being the price of being a landlord, but that doesn't change the reality or the consequences.

And if you've had to deal with any trades as a private individual lately, you would have more empathy. Unregulated, unprofessional, unreliable low quality wankers, on the whole. With no immediate correlation between quality and price. The only decent tradesmen I've found in a decade or more up here haven't been British, but we've sent most of them home.

Given the choice between doing hand to hand combat woth your average British tradesman, and just cashing in, a lot of landlords will cash in.
Fine. They should mind the door doesn't smack them on the censored on the way out. It's a business not a hobby. The property is then going to be on the market. More property coming to the market is not going to increase prices.

I'm not sure your experience of living in a semi-deserted bit of Scotland provides a representative view of the availability or quality of tradesmen. Interesting that you argue for more regulation here, but not for landlords. Those with safety critical roles are already pretty closely regulated.

Quite disrespectful of Scotlands capital city and this half of the central belt, but hey. I can actually see the city centre of Edinburgh from my house - its not that remote here.

Sorry, but the argunent thst reducing the number of rental properties will not increase rents is just silly.

I know its not a real place in your mind, but you might find the consequences of SNP interference in the rental market instructive.

Much of it, frankly, such as landlord registration, is quite sensible (SNP probably carried it through rather than came up with it), but rent control and imposing additional costs for second homes (rented or otherwise) is back firing. So is the looming ban not only on new boilers, but existing ones.

I can agree completely with your sentiments about shytty landlords and the realistic costs of being a landlord, whilst also drawing your attention to the inevitable consequences of scaring too many people out of that market.

First.Aspect · September 2023

super_davo said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
Would you want someone with that attitude as your landlord? As I've said on here a lot of times before, there are far too many 'property developers' out there who think it is money for old rope egged on by programmes like Homes Under The Hammer that make it seem like you buy a wreck at auction; chuck in a budget kitchen from Wickes, paint the walls and lay some grey carpets then watch the money roll in. If they aren't prepared to invest in basics like making the house energy efficient it makes you wonder what else they are skimping on.
Okay, but you do understand that if those people aren't landlords there will be less supply and higher rents, right?

I understand the point but also live in the real world.
I think the "less houses for rent = rent costs more" argument fails to recognise that the houses don't just disappear.

They will be sold, in many cases to an owner-occupier that was previously renting, which then reduces the demand for renting.

By and large, the people buying them aren't the same people who were previously renting them.

rjsterry · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
You know that on the one hand you've said it won't increase rents and on the other hand accepted that people will leave the market, reduce supply and push up rents?

You (and Pross) are industry specialists. You already know what to do and who to ask. Many landlords aren't going to get to that stage. You can scoff if you want and bang on about this just being the price of being a landlord, but that doesn't change the reality or the consequences.

And if you've had to deal with any trades as a private individual lately, you would have more empathy. Unregulated, unprofessional, unreliable low quality wankers, on the whole. With no immediate correlation between quality and price. The only decent tradesmen I've found in a decade or more up here haven't been British, but we've sent most of them home.

Given the choice between doing hand to hand combat woth your average British tradesman, and just cashing in, a lot of landlords will cash in.

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
You know that on the one hand you've said it won't increase rents and on the other hand accepted that people will leave the market, reduce supply and push up rents?

You (and Pross) are industry specialists. You already know what to do and who to ask. Many landlords aren't going to get to that stage. You can scoff if you want and bang on about this just being the price of being a landlord, but that doesn't change the reality or the consequences.

And if you've had to deal with any trades as a private individual lately, you would have more empathy. Unregulated, unprofessional, unreliable low quality wankers, on the whole. With no immediate correlation between quality and price. The only decent tradesmen I've found in a decade or more up here haven't been British, but we've sent most of them home.

Given the choice between doing hand to hand combat woth your average British tradesman, and just cashing in, a lot of landlords will cash in.
Fine. They should mind the door doesn't smack them on the censored on the way out. It's a business not a hobby. The property is then going to be on the market. More property coming to the market is not going to increase prices.

I'm not sure your experience of living in a semi-deserted bit of Scotland provides a representative view of the availability or quality of tradesmen. Interesting that you argue for more regulation here, but not for landlords. Those with safety critical roles are already pretty closely regulated.
Quite disrespectful of Scotlands capital city and this half of the central belt, but hey. I can actually see the city centre of Edinburgh from my house - its not that remote here.

Sorry, but the argunent thst reducing the number of rental properties will not increase rents is just silly.

I know its not a real place in your mind, but you might find the consequences of SNP interference in the rental market instructive.

Much of it, frankly, such as landlord registration, is quite sensible (SNP probably carried it through rather than came up with it), but rent control and imposing additional costs for second homes (rented or otherwise) is back firing. So is the looming ban not only on new boilers, but existing ones.

I can agree completely with your sentiments about shytty landlords and the realistic costs of being a landlord, whilst also drawing your attention to the inevitable consequences of scaring too many people out of that market.

Sorry; you keep mentioning how few people you see. Tradesmen are businesses too and need a certain number of customers to make a viable business. In a rural area that's more difficult so you will have less choice.

Imposing additional requirements on landlords may reduce the number of landlords. That doesn't necessarily translate to fewer rentals. Endless restrictions on housebuilding definitely does.

First.Aspect · September 2023

You are conflating other issues now.

I live 10 miles as the crow flies from Edinburgh. It is rural, but quicker for most people in the Edinburgh suburbs to get to than most of the city. The rural location necessitates a car. But we can pick from a very wide range of crepe tradesmen across much of the central belt who have a morality chip missing.

House building is another issue entirely.

rjsterry · September 2023

First.Aspect said:
You are conflating other issues now.

I live 10 miles as the crow flies from Edinburgh. It is rural, but quicker for most people in the Edinburgh suburbs to get to than most of the city. The rural location necessitates a car. But we can pick from a very wide range of crepe tradesmen across much of the central belt who have a morality chip missing.

House building is another issue entirely.

I've needed to use tradesmen on and off for the last 14 years as we bought a wreck that needed everything doing. Quality has varied but generally we got what we paid for. There's no short cut to research and references.

First.Aspect · September 2023

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:
You are conflating other issues now.

I live 10 miles as the crow flies from Edinburgh. It is rural, but quicker for most people in the Edinburgh suburbs to get to than most of the city. The rural location necessitates a car. But we can pick from a very wide range of crepe tradesmen across much of the central belt who have a morality chip missing.

House building is another issue entirely.
I've needed to use tradesmen on and off for the last 14 years as we bought a wreck that needed everything doing. Quality has varied but generally we got what we paid for. There's no short cut to research and references.

Indeed, so since it's such a PITA, a lot of landlords will just say screw this and sell.

kingstongraham · September 2023

Unless the buyer just leaves it empty, that house will still be occupied by somebody.

First.Aspect · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:
You are conflating other issues now.

I live 10 miles as the crow flies from Edinburgh. It is rural, but quicker for most people in the Edinburgh suburbs to get to than most of the city. The rural location necessitates a car. But we can pick from a very wide range of crepe tradesmen across much of the central belt who have a morality chip missing.

House building is another issue entirely.
I've needed to use tradesmen on and off for the last 14 years as we bought a wreck that needed everything doing. Quality has varied but generally we got what we paid for. There's no short cut to research and references.

Indeed, so since it's such a PITA, a lot of landlords will just say screw this and sell.

And a lot of the problem is time not cost. So if you need to get anything done that involves the interior decor, tradesman 1 will do their bit and maybe put a plasterboard patch back on, then tell you you need a decorator, who in turn will tell you to get a joiner first. For me, having to shop around three times and be pissed around by people who say they'll quote but don't, say they'll turn up but don't, or turn up and bore me rigid explaining they have a problem with the van, their gran, or the dog and take longer than they said because they didnt realise they needed a piece of wood, or paint, when really they are on another job, is enough to have me postpone maintenance of my own home, let alone anyone else's.

First.Aspect · September 2023

kingstongraham said:
Unless the buyer just leaves it empty, that house will still be occupied by somebody.

See above.

The projections are that even if population were to stay the same in the UK, the number of households will increase.

At least some, likely a lot, of people getting onto the housing market now are able to do so because they aren't currently paying rent.

Given the housing shortage already, small changes in availability could correspond to relatively large changes in rental costs.

See what I'm getting at?

First.Aspect · September 2023

Besides I am not arguing again against a green policy. I'm pointing out that there are consequences, and seeing who on the forum cares.

I don't see any other option, but there is an argument as to how you get there. I'm not a fan of these hard target cliff edge policies, because there will always be casualties and they will always be the people who can't afford to avoid being casualties.

kingstongraham · September 2023

If people don't want to be landlords if that means providing a decent home for their tenants, then they shouldn't be landlords. Not having adequate insulation already costs those renting these properties extra every year.

First.Aspect · September 2023

kingstongraham said:
If people don't want to be landlords if that means providing a decent home for their tenants, then they shouldn't be landlords. Not having adequate insulation already costs those renting these properties extra every year.

Okay. Agree about landlords.

Are you denying that there will be short and medium term consequences for the renters, by imposing additional requirements - however reasonable - on landlords?

If you are, and if you think it is still necessary then I can't argue.

Just as long as we aren't just tub thumping about terrible landlords without thinking it through.

wallace_and_gromit · September 2023

super_davo said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
Would you want someone with that attitude as your landlord? As I've said on here a lot of times before, there are far too many 'property developers' out there who think it is money for old rope egged on by programmes like Homes Under The Hammer that make it seem like you buy a wreck at auction; chuck in a budget kitchen from Wickes, paint the walls and lay some grey carpets then watch the money roll in. If they aren't prepared to invest in basics like making the house energy efficient it makes you wonder what else they are skimping on.
Okay, but you do understand that if those people aren't landlords there will be less supply and higher rents, right?

I understand the point but also live in the real world.
I think the "less houses for rent = rent costs more" argument fails to recognise that the houses don't just disappear.

They will be sold, in many cases to an owner-occupier that was previously renting, which then reduces the demand for renting.

I think there is a certain element of houses transferring from the private rental sector to the holiday let sector, which does reduce supply of houses for living in.

rjsterry · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:
You are conflating other issues now.

I live 10 miles as the crow flies from Edinburgh. It is rural, but quicker for most people in the Edinburgh suburbs to get to than most of the city. The rural location necessitates a car. But we can pick from a very wide range of crepe tradesmen across much of the central belt who have a morality chip missing.

House building is another issue entirely.
I've needed to use tradesmen on and off for the last 14 years as we bought a wreck that needed everything doing. Quality has varied but generally we got what we paid for. There's no short cut to research and references.

Indeed, so since it's such a PITA, a lot of landlords will just say screw this and sell.

It's not a PITA - jeez you can come across as entitled sometimes. 'Oh why won't someone replaster my house for a knockdown price but still to an excellent standard?'

It's a business. If your business model doesn't work, change something or close the business. I'm fine with that.

rjsterry · September 2023

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:
If people don't want to be landlords if that means providing a decent home for their tenants, then they shouldn't be landlords. Not having adequate insulation already costs those renting these properties extra every year.
Okay. Agree about landlords.

Are you denying that there will be short and medium term consequences for the renters, by imposing additional requirements - however reasonable - on landlords?

If you are, and if you think it is still necessary then I can't argue.

Just as long as we aren't just tub thumping about terrible landlords without thinking it through.

This. If we limit ourselves to only those things that don't inconvenience anyone we are going nowhere, followed by all having a lot more inconvenience in fairly short order.

More directly, we've seen the consequences of poorly insulated housing on low income tenants over the last year. Notwithstanding housing supply issues, these measures actually help tenants.

kingstongraham · September 2023

Renters will be paying less for energy. That's a medium term impact on them.

I don't particularly see this as being a "green" policy if it doesn't impose the same requirement on owner occupied property. As in the vehicle policy though, the worst option would be to appear as if you might go with it in 2028, maybe not. Landlords you might need to do this but we might change our minds.

Pross · September 2023

It's not like the requirement for hitting a certain level of energy efficiency was dropped on landlords with limited notice though. They were given years to get things up to standard. It's the same with the replacement of gas boilers, new ones were to be banned from 2035 which was announced in c. 2020 from memory. The life of a boiler is supposedly around 10-15 years so most people would have been able to replace within that time frame giving them up to around 2050 to actually get a heat pump (by which time they'll hopefully be cheaper and less intrusive). There should still be more focus on improving the fabric of buildings to be more efficient as the first step though.

First.Aspect · September 2023

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:
You are conflating other issues now.

I live 10 miles as the crow flies from Edinburgh. It is rural, but quicker for most people in the Edinburgh suburbs to get to than most of the city. The rural location necessitates a car. But we can pick from a very wide range of crepe tradesmen across much of the central belt who have a morality chip missing.

House building is another issue entirely.
I've needed to use tradesmen on and off for the last 14 years as we bought a wreck that needed everything doing. Quality has varied but generally we got what we paid for. There's no short cut to research and references.

Indeed, so since it's such a PITA, a lot of landlords will just say screw this and sell.
It's not a PITA - jeez you can come across as entitled sometimes. 'Oh why won't someone replaster my house for a knockdown price but still to an excellent standard?'

It's a business. If your business model doesn't work, change something or close the business. I'm fine with that.

I'm not a landlord. How am I entitled? When I was, I did what was required. Was I entitled then? Am I entitled for being annoyed at being treated disrespectfully by unregulated tradesmen? If so, a lot of people are entitled aren't they.

You can't on the one hand argue that there are lazy landlords who shouldn't be landlords, and on the other hand argue somehow that adding to responsibilities that they don't even fulfil now isn't going to have an effect.

It is, you know it is and no amount of saying,"well it shouldnt" is going to change that.

There is an argument, whether you agree or not, that more gradual change allows any given market to adjust with less collateral damage.

Don't know honestly what I think on this. With cars, from where we are now, I think it needs to be more gradual. Home energy efficiency, not sure.

rjsterry · September 2023

How much more gradual than a decade and a half would you like? After you're dead so it's someone else's problem?

focuszing723 · September 2023

rjsterry said:
How much more gradual than a decade and a half would you like? After you're dead so it's someone else's problem?

Were people forced from the horse and cart to motor vehicles?

No, the technology and price was good enough to make the switch natural. Why does it need to be forced?

First.Aspect · September 2023

rjsterry said:
How much more gradual than a decade and a half would you like? After you're dead so it's someone else's problem?

I told you I'm not sure on this.

The issue with EVs is they are still both crap and expensive.

Replacing a boiler with a heat pump is no more difficult than replacing a boiler with a boiler, so it's a less compelling argument.

Perhaps the only issue is forcing replacements by a certain date, rather than forcing replacements to be of a certain type.

Forcing double glazing and or insulation on people is so hugely costly it's also potentially problematic. Double glazing at least.

Munsford0 · September 2023

As I understand it, replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump requires much bigger radiators and in older properties a lot of sealing and insulation to make it effective? Or have I been sold a myth?

We're in a 30's semi with solid brick walls and would likely need to have external insulation fitted, so not just a simple swap?

kingstongraham · September 2023

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:
How much more gradual than a decade and a half would you like? After you're dead so it's someone else's problem?
Were people forced from the horse and cart to motor vehicles?

No, the technology and price was good enough to make the switch natural. Why does it need to be forced?

Cities installed asphalt roads to encourage the uptake of cars and discourage the use of horses because of all the horse manure everywhere.

First.Aspect · September 2023

Munsford0 said:
As I understand it, replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump requires much bigger radiators and in older properties a lot of sealing and insulation to make it effective? Or have I been sold a myth?

We're in a 30's semi with solid brick walls and would likely need to have external insulation fitted, so not just a simple swap?

You've had a decade to make this vast investment and if you face the Hobsons choice of selling a worthless property or spending what its worth making it worth what it used to be, well thats just bad luck. Talk to the hand.

Is that right folks?

Dorset_Boy · September 2023

Munsford0 said:
As I understand it, replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump requires much bigger radiators and in older properties a lot of sealing and insulation to make it effective? Or have I been sold a myth?

We're in a 30's semi with solid brick walls and would likely need to have external insulation fitted, so not just a simple swap?

Surely at the moment your gas or oil boiler is heating up the radiators and there is heat loss through the walls.
Yes the radiators need to be larger for a heat pump because of the lower temperatures they use, but the heat loss won't alter from the current situation.
Of course ideally you have better insulation whatever system you use.

First.Aspect · September 2023

kingstongraham said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:
How much more gradual than a decade and a half would you like? After you're dead so it's someone else's problem?
Were people forced from the horse and cart to motor vehicles?

No, the technology and price was good enough to make the switch natural. Why does it need to be forced?
Cities installed asphalt roads to encourage the uptake of cars and discourage the use of horses because of all the horse manure everywhere.

How does this discourage horses? Steptoe managed okay. And we have lots of horses near here. It's rural tarmac. Perhaps that's different.

The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

Comments

Categories