Energy Housing Bill (new world order)

[Sublime66]

Announced this week, a new energy bill for housing in the pipeline for all homeowners.

The government will be taking our homes from us if we don’t comply making our home’s energy efficient to whatever the new standard will be, with penalties of £15000 fine or imprisonment. Part of efforts to hit net zero targets. This is just the start, wait till the goal posts are changed further down the line making it harder to comply. This is ULEZ for housing. You can forget being able to rent or sell any property that isn't in line with the new rules, which is most of the UK housing as it stands.

Obviously we are all happy to have more energy efficient lifestyles more respectful to our environments. But while China and India are each increasing more than our whole Co2 output per year, how long will people keep sleepwalking before its too late and their houses are taken from them as they can't afford the fines?

#youwillownnothingandbehappy

https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/09/03/uk-homeowners-face-jail-or-15k-fine-in-energy-bill-crackdown/

I’m grade 2 listed and was refused permission for double glazing. Walls made of mud and horsehair. All historically significant. Just how do they expect me to become energy efficient?

Interesting
Can you point to where I the bill it says this? I've just done a high level scan and can't find anything

It's a proposal. Nothing will happen for years, if at all.

Nothing will ever come of it.

We're a country with buildings that are centuries old. Listed buildings can only have so much work done to them - and there's a lot of listed buildings!

New builds, they can bring in whatever rules they want but when we have buildings dating back almost 1000 years - their hands are tied.

@hdbs17 why would they bother going to such trouble to pass something so draconian and wide reaching that won't be used?

If you read the various points in the legislation it doesn't just criminalise your energy efficiency, it also criminalises your energy usage.

Additionally it grants authorised individuals and police to use reasonable force to enter your home without a warrant.

Well net zero comes at a cost.

Effectively everyone is going to be forced off fossil fuels at some point. Gas, oil, LPG are all going to die. It's just a matter of when rather than if.

Good news (?) is that a lot of people in houses that are non compliant probably will never move, and be dead by the time the really punitive rules come in.

But if I were say in my 30s/40s and considering buying a very poorly rated and difficult to re-rate forever house at the moment I would think about it very carefully.

@TheNoonBell
So they can pat themselves on the back for looking like they're doing something about climate change. It doesn't mean they'll actually do it.

Where is the government going to get the money to make all the council owned Victorian properties that are used for social housing meet these new guidelines? Tax us more? Push the country further into debt? And what happens when we're all taxed so highly and paying so much to make our own homes energy efficient that we have nothing left?

I doubt the housing currently being built near us has heat pumps, they don’t even have solar panels! And they are not cheap!

This is how you incite riots. Nice work, Tories.

It's smoke and mirrors and if it doesn't disappear entirely, the consequences will turn into fines.

It's always about money.

So you think Labour are not going to go for net zero and are not going to have to implement things like this ? They are.

You are right it is always about the money. Net zero is going to cost money and someone is going to have to pay for that. Who should it be, the person that owns the house, or society in general ? Should renters for example pay more income tax to fund the energy conversions of rich middle class homeowners ?

It’s not a proposal, it’s gone through the Lords and the Commons, it’s had about three readings and some amendments, it’ll be law very soon.

people like to say “oh it won’t happen” and look the other way. Next thing it’s happened. I thought the stuff about charging to drive into towns and banning petrol and diesel cars was hysterical hyperbole and look what happened.

The prison idea is laughable, prisons are bulging at the seams and it would cripple the economy. Penalizing home owners when they sell is a low blow and I can see that happening.

But if I were say in my 30s/40s and considering buying a very poorly rated and difficult to re-rate forever house at the moment I would think about it very carefully

definitely. I live in a Victorian semi with no cavity wall. A heat pump wouldn’t be effective, so I’d spend a fortune fitting and running it and still be cold. I wouldn’t buy such a house again. I imagine if I tried to sell it next week people would have a similar view. So I’d struggle to sell. So if you live in such a house you’ve already been fucked over as your house value has been affected.

Whoa there @GasPanic, I didn't say being energy efficient is unnecessary and bad!

I don't think Labour would threaten to jail people, no.

When I say it's all about money, I mean they'll do half arsed measures to appease the green vote but it will end up being a money making scheme for the government. If your home doesn't comply, you will get slapped with a large tax every time you sell a house like this.

I have already seen an exemption for a rental rated G since energy prices flew up. They issued it because the landlord would have had to spend more than 3.5k to get it past the legal rating of an E (and actually it was only about £200 over and would have taken it to a D).

They love dishing out exemptions because they seem to love landlords.

Whatever happens will be at a bloody snail's pace.

We don't even have the trained workforce to implement in timelines they EVER suggest anyway!

Ultimately, homeowners need to be encouraged to improve with at least some financial help from the government, but the money just isn't there to do so right now. It also needs to be done carefully, i.e
the financial help you get could be means tested.

But careful thought isn't really the way things seem to be done in the Government.

Removing the carrot and getting out the stick is not going to produce good results.

@hdbs17 It's quite simple, they won't be living there any more as those building won't be able to be used for residential purposes due to low EPC.

Individuals will be responsible for the cost of making homes compliant or face a fine and/or prison.

This law is being set up for Labour to use.

Both parties work for the WEF. Starmer even went to the last Davos conference and commented how he preferred it to parliament as you can get more stuff done.

I don't know what the expect me to do as I can't afford such changes and in my 1905 house it will be impossible I expect. Still a nice warm jail to maybe write a book or something whilst having no bills doesn't sound all bad

@KievLoverTwo

‘I don't think Labour would threaten to jail people, no.‘’

I dont think they would bother with the ‘threaten’ bit. It would be like Monopoly.

Well good luck to them. I doubt prisons have room for all the people who won't be able to pay the fines. Pretty sure social housing won't manage all the homeless if they take our homes either.

@TheNoonBell and where are people going to go if they're not living in those houses? There's already a housing shortage and long waiting lists for adequate social housing!

The jails will be freezing as I assume they’ll be running on heat source pumps.

Three options

Make individuals pay for changes that will have material impact

Or increase taxes in a fair and proportionate manner

Or make individuals pay for adaptation with their cash, their quality of life and length of life. This is the most expensive , but it seems to be what people here actually want. I can't wrap my head around "I can't possibly afford it so I'm going to chose the most expensive option "

@hdbs17 Eventually high density rented housing.

Here is the EU's timescale:

• The Parliament now goes into trialogue with the Council and its position is:All new buildings should be zero-emission from 2028;
• Existing buildings will have to comply with MEPS to reach climate neutrality by 2050;
• Residential buildings will have to achieve a minimum energy performance rating; of Class E by 2030, and Class D by 2033 (EU’s Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) Ratings classes);
• Non-residential and public buildings would have to achieve Class E by 2027 and Class D 2030
• Member States will have to set higher standards for those buildings after that date and for the rest of the stock;

Where did I say that you said that being energy efficient is unnecessary and bad ?

Read what I wrote. Don't come up with a straw man.

Net zero is going to cost. Most people seem to think net zero is a good idea, but when confronted with the cost it's "where's my subsidy?" - in other words your carrot.

There is no carrot. There is only stick. If people want carrots those carrots have got to come from somewhere. The question is where. I would argue that a young family in a 2 bed flat with 2 kids should not be subsidising older people in large houses with wealth but low energy efficiency.

In short, I don't believe that society should bear the costs, the costs should be borne by the people who own the energy inefficient infrastructure. I'm pretty sure there will be people out there who think differently to this. Democracy will determine which path we take.

Because ULEZ is proving so popular? Starmer is already begging Khan to revise the decision as he knows it will cost them votes