About 50% of people will not be in fuel poverty by definition, even if they spend all their income on energy

[cakeorwine]

It is of course unlikely that someone will spend all their income on fuel.

But the definition of fuel poverty is complicated.

Basically

1. Your house / flat has to have an energy band less than C
2. They look at what they think it would cost to keep your house warm when it comes to the cost of energy. They then deduct that cost from your equivalised income (See my other thread) and if that amount takes you below the poverty line, then you are in fuel poverty * (this is England's definition)

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1056842/fuel-poverty-factsheet-2020.pdf

In 2020, the fuel gap between what was needed to keep a house warm and what people in fuel poverty needed was £223

13% of households were fuel poor.

However, according to the EPC certificates, the median efficiency of houses is Band D - so that means that anyone in a house / flat of Band C or above cannot be defined as being fuel poor - even if they are spending a high proportion of their income on fuel

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/energyefficiencyofhousinginenglandandwales/2021#energy-efficiency-of-housing-in-england-and-wales-data

You can see the energy performance certificate of your house (if it has been done) here

www.gov.uk/find-energy-certificate

Is there an AIBU? Yes - AIBU to think that is not a very helpful definition as you can be in a well insulated house but still be in poverty because of your fuel bills?

Ok.

It's always good to know what definitions people, especially politicians, are using when they talk about fuel poverty.

People think it's 10% of household income. That's not used in England anymore.

So you can be spending a lot of your income on fuel, but if you are in a property that is Band C or above, you won't be included in fuel poverty statistics.

I’m not surprised, they manipulate the figures to reflect what they want to reflect, ie, 90% of the U.K. is doing alright and not in fuel poverty, when a lot more than 10% are!

Thats interesting

thanks cake

That's the English definition

Scotland and wales I believe use the 10% of your post tax income as the definition

I am a big fan of More or Less - the first they ask is "What do you mean by?"

And then you need to go down the data definitions.

And I think that probably gets harder as it may look at equivalised income as well - but am not sure on that.

Households themselves know if fuel costs are having an impact on their lives.

It would be an interesting survey to ask people if they thought that fuel costs were putting them into fuel poverty

Very interesting, I had no idea thats how they worked it out.

Just checked my house and we're EPC rating C so wont be in the stats.

It's good that they look at what it should cost to keep your house warm as opposed to what it is costing you if you are turning heating down.

But of course, even that's hard to control as who is defining how much energy it should take - someone who is vulnerable to the cold and who is at home all the time needs much more energy than someone who is healthy and who is out all the time. We all have different energy needs.

That’s really interesting - I thought it was the 10% measure. Thanks for this, OP, useful!

My rented flat is C rated. The rating doesn't account for draughts at all. I've lived in E-rated flats that were much warmer. Landlord won't pay for draught-proofing and I've done all I can. The rating is a joke and so is the fuel poverty definition.

It does seem strange.

When people clearly can't afford to pay for fuel - or if their fuel costs are putting them into poverty, then to be told that you aren't in fuel poverty because your house is C rated or above

The thing is - I can see politicians claiming that they have taken so many people out of fuel poverty...

I’m in band C. My utilities will be, by October some 25% of my income, but I won’t be included.😡

But how many older housing stock is EPC C or above?

We've lived here (in a post war semi ) for over 15 years so our house doesn't have an EPC but similar houses on Rightmove, of which there are loads, are all D or E.

I agree that definitions are important, but it doesn't take away from the fact that, if you're on a low to medium income and your fuel bill has gone up by hundreds of pounds a month, which it will have done over last couple of years (about £100 pm to about £3/400 pm) then it's a huge impact on your budget, and pensioners and other low income households are going to see a much increased and huge proportion of their income taken up on utilities and council tax alone, before they spend on other essentials like food and basic transport.

Whatever the definition is, that's what matters. If you're a More or Less fan, you'll also remember that, in the last recession in 2008, the number of people in relative poverty actually decreased, because it's pegged against the median income, which decreased. So people who's incomes hadn't changed or actually reduced, no longer met the definition of poverty, because a line had fallen below their income, even though they weren't any less worse off.

Single pensioner .band c property.
If the energy costs are going up to 5k a year then that's much more than 50% of my state pension. No savings to fall back on .Can't claim pension credit. Believe me this will be real poverty

But how does that work because a lot of houses won’t have an accurate EPC? They last ten years so if you’ve lived in your house longer than that and you have no intention of moving (which will be a substantial number of people), then they simply won’t know what their EPC is.

I agree that definitions are important, but it doesn't take away from the fact that, if you're on a low to medium income and your fuel bill has gone up by hundreds of pounds a month, which it will have done over last couple of years (about £100 pm to about £3/400 pm) then it's a huge impact on your budget, and pensioners and other low income households are going to see a much increased and huge proportion of their income taken up on utilities and council tax alone, before they spend on other essentials like food and basic transport

Exactly - it will be disheartening for Government to use official statistics to discuss fuel poverty and to exclude people purely because of the house EPC.

It's going to bad anyway this year - and that's without the people who are excluded.

Maybe this is one for More or Less to look at.

Whatever the definition is, that's what matters. If you're a More or Less fan, you'll also remember that, in the last recession in 2008, the number of people in relative poverty actually decreased, because it's pegged against the median income, which decreased. So people who's incomes hadn't changed or actually reduced, no longer met the definition of poverty, because a line had fallen below their income, even though they weren't any less worse off

Oh yes - and that's what makes statistics and definitions so interesting and debatable.

And you can see politicians say that fewer people are in relative poverty. Which would be a true statement.

In some ways I think this makes sense.

I can see the reasoning in thinking if your house is above average heat retention wise then the “reason” for your poverty isn’t really fuel related.

Having a particular sort of poverty is, in some ways, bizarre. Few people are unable to afford fuel (or food, or period products, or whatever) but easily able to afford everything else with money to spare. Mainly it should be “low-income poverty” because the reason for you being in poverty is simply that your income isn’t high enough to sustain a reasonable way of life.

Just having 10% of your income on fuel being the mark would, I suppose, mean that some people who choose to spend lots of money heating a Stately home and outdoor swimming pool all winter could be covered (and, obviously, less ridiculously extreme but still clearly not “poor” examples).

So this measure tries to look at whether the reason for your poverty is because your housing is below average in heat retention and the need to heat it pushes your available income into poverty. Which, when looking at poverty and its causes, seems more useful.

Relative poverty rates going down in a recession is a well known phenomenon. They always need to be looked at side by side with standard of living and quality of life stats.

So this measure tries to look at whether the reason for your poverty is because your housing is below average in heat retention and the need to heat it pushes your available income into poverty. Which, when looking at poverty and its causes, seems more useful

But what about people whose houses are above average but the need to heat it also pushes their income into poverty.

Those households also deserve to be 'counted'.

Wondering if this will be relevant to the changes in the warm home discount scheme criteria... it's not opening until November this year (usually September/October) and details are yet to be announced.

There's lots of anomalies.

A young family could have a relatively high income but have little left after rent, childcare and commuting costs, but not be able to absorb price increases or be entitled to any help except that what is given universally.

Is the classic 'poor widow' who sees a lot of her small pension go on utilities and other essentials really more deserving of help when she owns her house outright and has benefitted from substantial six figure house price growth? If she can't pay her utility bills, she could always downsize or release equity, rather than expect the taxpayer to pay her utility bills as a near millionaire.

As you say, it's complicated. If someone is late bing in a well insulated house and they still need to use more fuel than most, is it the fuel pushing them into poverty or whatever it is that drives this additional need for fuel?

They wouldn't necessarily be caught by a 10% rule either.

I don't think it's obvious that this is a worse way to look at fuel poverty. But it is different and it's well worth highlighting what the government means when it talks about fuel poverty in England.

It’s a blatant manipulation for various reasons. It hides just how many people are in fuel poverty in one of the world’s richest nations. It hides just how many “rich” higher tax payers are technically in fuel poverty. This in turn highlights how low the salaries are across the board from entry jobs, to high skilled jobs. Again, in one of the world’s most developed countries.

I have just checked the government website, our house doesn't have an EPC 🤷‍♀️

I am pretty sure that we will be E as next door is and I have a feeling that if you have electric heating you can't get the better bands.