Talk:Energy Performance Certificate (United Kingdom)

Energy Unassessed

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I have removed commercial spam and kept relevant links on advice on EPCs. Peterlewis (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the section previously entitled The A-G scale; it's now split into two sections, A-G scale and Recommendations. I've also added some further information about the recommendations, including citation links to the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes archive, and the CLG page on accreditation schemes. LinniR (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOes anyone know what the figures refer to... is it an actual score or is there a unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.102.10 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism: EPCs have less quantifiable value than the cost of the system?

I endeavoured to add a relevant topic to the "Criticism" section but another editor removed it. I agree that no sources were cited; but this is also true for some other areas in the Criticism section.

Here's my point:

- One area of criticism, covered in the article, is that EPCs can be misleading

- A second area of criticism, not yet covered in the article, is that EPCs have little or no utility.

Here's what I mean by "utility" - in economic terms, a government imposing an additional mandatory burden on house sellers, should demonstrate that the EPCs drive different behaviour from house purchasers due to the environmental impact awareness the system of EPCs creates. The EPCs should either (a) influence buying decisions or house prices; or (b) lead new house purchasers to invest in environmental improvements. The reason many estate agents regard EPCs as (to quote one recently) "useless administrative burden", is that they are "entirely ignored and unread". Perhaps a reader can provide a citation for a statistically valid study which DISproves this criticism? Can it be shown that EPCs create more value than the £100m or so (survey charges, government overhead, estate agent overhead, time to supervise property access etc) which the present system costs to operate?

Perhaps another editor can find a better way to word this encyclopedically. It is certainly correct that EPCs are criticised for adding no actual, quantifiable value.

Additionally the same editor removed a correction of the cost of EPCs from "£60" to "£60-90". I believe the original £60 excluded 20% VAT, and for some homes understates the cost (I have a recent invoice here for £90 and others are higher). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpfuledits (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are people doing 'energy performance certificate' inspections for £35 and no vat. In fact, they should only charge vat if they are vat registered and many aren't due to a turnover of less than £70,000 a year. Let's face it, to achieve a turnover of £70,000 a year, they'd have to do a minimum of 6 surveys a day, constant, at £50 a time. (unless, of course, they do the energy performance certificates in addition to other business)

92.239.90.145 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]