EPC - diy possible?
David J
what was left behind, courtesy of the EU, is the Energy Performance
Certificate (EPC) which is compulsory at the sale or new rental of all
properties in the UK. A set of bands from A to F is produced, rather
like those used on a new domestic fridge.
These EPCs are only available from an 'accredited energy assessor' at
a fee to be paid by the seller.
What I would like to know is why this 'calculation' is a secret, only
available to those who have paid about £2k for a course that includes
the required software used. I realise that the various factors need
loading, but that should not be too difficult to manage.
Should not this piece of compulsory information be in the public
domain? If you can work out your own income tax, what is so special
about energy efficiency?
David J
Tony Bryer
> What I would like to know is why this 'calculation' is a secret, only
> available to those who have paid about £2k for a course that includes
> the required software used. I realise that the various factors need
> loading, but that should not be too difficult to manage.
>
> Should not this piece of compulsory information be in the public
> domain? If you can work out your own income tax, what is so special
> about energy efficiency?
The methodology is in the public domain at
http://projects.bre.co.uk/sap2005/
The key issue is that EPCs can only be issued by accredited assessors,
and to be an assessor you need to be signed up in one of the schemes ...
which, as you've realised, doesn't come cheap.
--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com
John Williamson
The accredited assessor is independent of the vendor, so is, in theory,
impartial, and responsible for any errors in the report. I would
certainly not trust *any* report produced by the vendor, should I be buying.
Part of the cost is for the liability insurance. If you think it's
expensive for domestic premises, you should see the cost for commercial
places. I've just had a shop and a flat over it checked, and the shop,
which is basically one room and half the size of the flat, cost over
twice the amount charged for the flat.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Tony Bryer
> A flip answer is that it's just another tax on selling.
>
> The accredited assessor is independent of the vendor, so is, in
> theory, impartial, and responsible for any errors in the report. I
> would certainly not trust *any* report produced by the vendor,
> should I be buying.
>
> Part of the cost is for the liability insurance.
But the reality is that no one cares. I did a lot of work
(pointlessly as it turned out) on my UK home before selling - the
agent said mine was the first older property he'd seen that had a 'C'
rating. Did it make any difference? No. I can't imagine one vendor in
a hundred leaning on the assessor to produce a better rating.
As to liability, surely all you can sue the assessor for is the
difference between what you would have paid had you known that the
property had a 'D' versus what you paid because it purportedly had a
'C' rating. A negligible amount compared with what you might be
claiming for a defective structural survey.
jgharston
> But the reality is that no one cares
Too true. Say to a potential buyer: this house will use £10
a year in heating, and they'll say, No! Gimmie that one!
It's in the right catchment area!!!!
JGH
John Williamson
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:08:53 +0000 John Williamson wrote :
>> A flip answer is that it's just another tax on selling.
>>
>> The accredited assessor is independent of the vendor, so is, in
>> theory, impartial, and responsible for any errors in the report. I
>> would certainly not trust *any* report produced by the vendor,
>> should I be buying.
>>
>> Part of the cost is for the liability insurance.
>
> But the reality is that no one cares. I did a lot of work
> (pointlessly as it turned out) on my UK home before selling - the
> agent said mine was the first older property he'd seen that had a 'C'
> rating. Did it make any difference? No. I can't imagine one vendor in
> a hundred leaning on the assessor to produce a better rating.
>
> As to liability, surely all you can sue the assessor for is the
> difference between what you would have paid had you known that the
> property had a 'D' versus what you paid because it purportedly had a
> 'C' rating. A negligible amount compared with what you might be
> claiming for a defective structural survey.
>
All I was saying that I would not trust an EPC known to be generated by
the vendor.
That's why I'd be doing my own searches and survey, no matter what it
said in a HIP, if they still existed.
newshound
>>
> A flip answer is that it's just another tax on selling.
>
Except that taxes get spent on something, perhaps even something useful.
Presumably you can't even just declare an F?
David J
<to...@delme.greentram.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:34:01 +0000 David J wrote :
>> What I would like to know is why this 'calculation' is a secret, only
>> available to those who have paid about �2k for a course that includes
>> the required software used. I realise that the various factors need
>> loading, but that should not be too difficult to manage.
>>
>> Should not this piece of compulsory information be in the public
>> domain? If you can work out your own income tax, what is so special
>> about energy efficiency?
>
>The methodology is in the public domain at
>http://projects.bre.co.uk/sap2005/
>
Thanks for that lead... I couldn't find those details anywhere.
It's clear that SAP 2005 is a very complex document, with over 100
boxes to be filled in to reach the final calc.
I cannot imagine one of those accredited assessors working their way
through all that detail/tables of the house construction, although
their s/w obviously reduces this to a manageable level...
(interesting refs to your work on steel beams)
Tony Bryer
> I cannot imagine one of those accredited assessors working their way
> through all that detail/tables of the house construction, although
> their s/w obviously reduces this to a manageable level...
SAP proper is used for new builds. For EPCs on existing homes, RD
[reduced data] SAP is used, with certain broad-brush assumptions made
which are appropriate for (say) 90% of homes. You can find these in
SAP2005 http://www.bre.co.uk/sap2005 Appendix S. The way in which the
actual rating number translates to a band A-G is in Table 15
John Rumm
> See the first line of my post.
>
> All I was saying that I would not trust an EPC known to be generated by
> the vendor.
Indeed, and understandable. However given the choice of paying for your
own EPC or not having one at all, which would you choose?
I would guess that energy performance as a deciding factor in which
house to buy is pretty far down the list for most buyers. Especially as
its something you can improve after purchase.
> That's why I'd be doing my own searches and survey, no matter what it
> said in a HIP, if they still existed.
Most conveyancing solicitors insisted on doing the same for obvious
reasons. One of the many ways in which HIPs were fundamentally flawed.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Another Dave
> As many know, HIP was suspended (not abolished) on 21st May 2010. But
> what was left behind, courtesy of the EU, is the Energy Performance
> Certificate (EPC) which is compulsory at the sale or new rental of all
> properties in the UK.
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the EU. The EU requires
that member states monitor the energy efficiency of their housing stock
but a random survey of a sample of properties would suffice for this.
The EPC was dreamt up by UK government/civil service.
Another Dave
Man at B&Q
It's known as "gold plating" and happens with a lot of EU regs as they
are passed into UK law. Other countries seem to do the bare minimum to
comply, or just ignore them completely. Must be something to do with
the British sense of "justice" and "fair play", LOL!
MBQ
Tony Bryer
> Most conveyancing solicitors insisted on doing the same for obvious
> reasons. One of the many ways in which HIPs were fundamentally flawed.
Here in Victoria an estate agent is not allowed to accept an offer on a
property unless the prospective purchasers has been given what is called
a section 32 notice - effectively a HIP. I looked at one property as a
potential investment and the s32 revealed outstanding legal action
between the Owners Corporation (similar status as UK freeholder of a
flat) and the original developer; I took no further action and wasn't
out of pocket on survey or legal expenses.
I really don't buy the argument that the vendor might have fiddled the
contents - it would be bound to come out - and as to the argument that
things might have changed since the report was done, they're far more
likely to change in the years that you own the property and no one ever
worries about this.
John Williamson
> On 04/01/2011 22:19, John Williamson wrote:
>
>> See the first line of my post.
>>
>> All I was saying that I would not trust an EPC known to be generated by
>> the vendor.
>
> Indeed, and understandable. However given the choice of paying for your
> own EPC or not having one at all, which would you choose?
>
choice of having one or not. I've never bought a home with one yet,
though, so the matter didn't come up, though I did poke my head into the
loft and check for insulation amongst other things.
Given that, I'd rather have one prepared by an accredited professional
than Joe Public. The cost is factored into the house price by the agent
anyway, as was the cost of a HIP.
> I would guess that energy performance as a deciding factor in which
> house to buy is pretty far down the list for most buyers. Especially as
> its something you can improve after purchase.
>
A process which the EPC can help you with, unless you do your own full
survey before purchase. It comes with notes as to how the energy
efficiency can be improved, and a guess as to the result. Knowing what's
recommended can also help the purchaser guess how much it's going to
cost to update the property and adjust their offer accordingly.
Tim Watts
January 2011 12:12:
> John Rumm wrote:
>> On 04/01/2011 22:19, John Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> See the first line of my post.
>>>
>>> All I was saying that I would not trust an EPC known to be generated by
>>> the vendor.
>>
>> Indeed, and understandable. However given the choice of paying for your
>> own EPC or not having one at all, which would you choose?
>>
> As it's a legal requirement when a property is sold,
"Marketed", technically.
Which means you need one as soon as you advertise the property. enforcement
is down to the local council, same dept as do Weights and Measures...
--
Tim Watts
John Rumm
> John Rumm wrote:
>> On 04/01/2011 22:19, John Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> See the first line of my post.
>>>
>>> All I was saying that I would not trust an EPC known to be generated by
>>> the vendor.
>>
>> Indeed, and understandable. However given the choice of paying for
>> your own EPC or not having one at all, which would you choose?
>>
> As it's a legal requirement when a property is sold, I don't have the
> choice of having one or not. I've never bought a home with one yet,
I realise that, hence why I said "given the choice". In other words, say
there were no EPC provided by the vendor (and no legal requirement for
them to do so), would you still commission your own EPC at your expense
for a place you were buying?
> though, so the matter didn't come up, though I did poke my head into the
> loft and check for insulation amongst other things.
>
> Given that, I'd rather have one prepared by an accredited professional
> than Joe Public. The cost is factored into the house price by the agent
> anyway, as was the cost of a HIP.
The cost is factored into the agents fees - not quite the same as the
house price.
>> I would guess that energy performance as a deciding factor in which
>> house to buy is pretty far down the list for most buyers. Especially
>> as its something you can improve after purchase.
>>
> A process which the EPC can help you with, unless you do your own full
> survey before purchase. It comes with notes as to how the energy
> efficiency can be improved, and a guess as to the result. Knowing what's
> recommended can also help the purchaser guess how much it's going to
> cost to update the property and adjust their offer accordingly.
From those that I have seen, I am not convinced. The assessor makes a
visual inspection of the property, and when is not able to see
something, guesses at the answer, even when information to the contrary
is available from the vendor. The result is a work of fantasy that seems
to have little foundation in fact in many cases.
The suggested remedies are simply a boilerplate list of things that
could be done. The only concession being to filter out those not
immediately applicable.
John Rumm
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:07:55 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
>> Most conveyancing solicitors insisted on doing the same for obvious
>> reasons. One of the many ways in which HIPs were fundamentally flawed.
>
> Here in Victoria an estate agent is not allowed to accept an offer on a
> property unless the prospective purchasers has been given what is called
> a section 32 notice - effectively a HIP. I looked at one property as a
> potential investment and the s32 revealed outstanding legal action
> between the Owners Corporation (similar status as UK freeholder of a
> flat) and the original developer; I took no further action and wasn't
> out of pocket on survey or legal expenses.
> I really don't buy the argument that the vendor might have fiddled the
> contents - it would be bound to come out - and as to the argument that
> things might have changed since the report was done, they're far more
> likely to change in the years that you own the property and no one ever
> worries about this.
Depends on what you mean by fiddled? There is a vast difference between
a vendor deliberately hiding something, and one just doing the absolute
minimum required to comply with the law.
For example, say you had a suspicion that your property may be possibly
attract chancel fees, however you have never actually been told this,
and have not so far ever been charged. Would you commission a chancel
search if it were not on the list of required searches?
Say you needed to commission a survey, again you will probably go for
the cheapest and quickest. There is also a fair chance that some
surveyors would win favour (and repeat business) with agents and vendors
by raising the fewest problems with their reports... much the same a
many garages may know the best place to take a car for a MoT without it
getting too much attention to detail.
Andy Dingley
> > As it's a legal requirement when a property is sold,
>
> "Marketed", technically.
No, sold.
A HIP was needed to market the property. EPC is needed if it's
sold.
We bought our place (two years ago) direct from the seller who had
never marketed it, and had neither HIP nor EPC. We needed to pay for
the EPC ourselves before we could complete, as neither party's
solicitors would permit completion without. As we were buying from a
crazed hippy and we were running out of time on the mortgage offer,
the notion that the seller ought to be paying for it became moot.
Tim Watts
15:02:
> On Jan 6, 1:44 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>
>> > As it's a legal requirement when a property is sold,
>>
>> "Marketed", technically.
>
> No, sold.
>
> A HIP was needed to market the property. EPC is needed if it's
> sold.
Ah - OK. Fine.
I thought they were part and parcel of the same package...
> We bought our place (two years ago) direct from the seller who had
> never marketed it, and had neither HIP nor EPC. We needed to pay for
> the EPC ourselves before we could complete, as neither party's
> solicitors would permit completion without. As we were buying from a
> crazed hippy and we were running out of time on the mortgage offer,
> the notion that the seller ought to be paying for it became moot.
Interesting sounding vendor...
--
Tim Watts
Andy Dingley
> Interesting sounding vendor...
Right PITA to be honest.
OTOH, I now have 1,000sq ft of workshop, which is why I was still so
keen to buy it.
John Williamson
> On 06/01/2011 12:12, John Williamson wrote:
>> John Rumm wrote:
>>> Indeed, and understandable. However given the choice of paying for
>>> your own EPC or not having one at all, which would you choose?
>>>
>> As it's a legal requirement when a property is sold, I don't have the
>> choice of having one or not. I've never bought a home with one yet,
>
> I realise that, hence why I said "given the choice". In other words, say
> there were no EPC provided by the vendor (and no legal requirement for
> them to do so), would you still commission your own EPC at your expense
> for a place you were buying?
>
less the right answers myself. I do this when I first view the place,
carrying a ladder in the car just in case, and a camera with a decent
lens on a long stick. Then again, I did a course on building
construction as part of a quantity surveying course many years ago, and
have seen what goes on on site which isn't necessarily what is on the
drawings. I can look for and diagnose things like damp patches round
cavity wall ties and such, where the mortar's bridging the cavity.
Without that experience, you'd be wanting to pay a professional for a
full survey anyway, which should include an energy use check of some sort.
>> though, so the matter didn't come up, though I did poke my head into the
>> loft and check for insulation amongst other things.
>>
>> Given that, I'd rather have one prepared by an accredited professional
>> than Joe Public. The cost is factored into the house price by the agent
>> anyway, as was the cost of a HIP.
>
> The cost is factored into the agents fees - not quite the same as the
> house price.
>
Splitting the odd hair. The price paid for a property is the amount
received by the vendor plus all the fees. Either way, the cost is
effectively borne by the purchaser, it's just the way it's split.
>>> I would guess that energy performance as a deciding factor in which
>>> house to buy is pretty far down the list for most buyers. Especially
>>> as its something you can improve after purchase.
>>>
>> A process which the EPC can help you with, unless you do your own full
>> survey before purchase. It comes with notes as to how the energy
>> efficiency can be improved, and a guess as to the result. Knowing what's
>> recommended can also help the purchaser guess how much it's going to
>> cost to update the property and adjust their offer accordingly.
>
> From those that I have seen, I am not convinced. The assessor makes a
> visual inspection of the property, and when is not able to see
> something, guesses at the answer, even when information to the contrary
> is available from the vendor. The result is a work of fantasy that seems
> to have little foundation in fact in many cases.
>
Most of the suggestions made on the one I had done just before Christmas
made good sense for normal use of the flat. It was even more or less
right about the payback periods. It didn't take account of the way I use
the hot water tank in the airing cupboard as a space heater to warm the
bathroom up on cold mornings, then turn the hot water off until the
following night, except for top-ups. The jacket that's sitting waiting
in the airing cupboard for Spring will be put on before I leave. Where
the EPC process could fall down is where the bulding is not of normal
tile roof and brick wall construction. It did, or so I've been told,
regard a thatched roof as being uninsulated if there wasn't any
insulation in the loft space.
> The suggested remedies are simply a boilerplate list of things that
> could be done. The only concession being to filter out those not
> immediately applicable.
>
Yersss....
I'll not argue except to say that the boilerplate list is there for a
reason.
It was suggested that I replace the convector heaters which run on a
timer only when I'm home and an hour or so either side with storage
heaters, which store up heat when I'm in and let it out while I'm at
work, for instance. If someone's in all day, then they make sense.
John Rumm
> John Rumm wrote:
>> On 06/01/2011 12:12, John Williamson wrote:
>>> John Rumm wrote:
>>>> Indeed, and understandable. However given the choice of paying for
>>>> your own EPC or not having one at all, which would you choose?
>>>>
>>> As it's a legal requirement when a property is sold, I don't have the
>>> choice of having one or not. I've never bought a home with one yet,
>>
>> I realise that, hence why I said "given the choice". In other words,
>> say there were no EPC provided by the vendor (and no legal requirement
>> for them to do so), would you still commission your own EPC at your
>> expense for a place you were buying?
>>
> No. But *I* can look at most houses closely and come up with more or
> less the right answers myself. I do this when I first view the place,
> carrying a ladder in the car just in case, and a camera with a decent
> lens on a long stick. Then again, I did a course on building
> construction as part of a quantity surveying course many years ago, and
> have seen what goes on on site which isn't necessarily what is on the
> drawings. I can look for and diagnose things like damp patches round
> cavity wall ties and such, where the mortar's bridging the cavity.
That was my point really. You are primarily interested in spotting
serious or potentially serious problems. The stuff on the EPC usually
falls into "might be nice to know" category, but not if its going to
waste time and cost you more...
> Without that experience, you'd be wanting to pay a professional for a
> full survey anyway, which should include an energy use check of some sort.
When I bought I current place three years ago, I had a valuation survey
done and gave the surveyor instructions as to the bits I was not
interested in (i.e. heating, plumbing, electrics etc, since I can assess
and fix those myself). From an energy point of view, I was quite happy
with a statement from the vendors as to what they were paying for gas
and electric. (don't think they had an EPC since they put it onto the
market before they were compulsory)
>>> A process which the EPC can help you with, unless you do your own full
>>> survey before purchase. It comes with notes as to how the energy
>>> efficiency can be improved, and a guess as to the result. Knowing what's
>>> recommended can also help the purchaser guess how much it's going to
>>> cost to update the property and adjust their offer accordingly.
>>
>> From those that I have seen, I am not convinced. The assessor makes a
>> visual inspection of the property, and when is not able to see
>> something, guesses at the answer, even when information to the
>> contrary is available from the vendor. The result is a work of fantasy
>> that seems to have little foundation in fact in many cases.
<snip>
> in the airing cupboard for Spring will be put on before I leave. Where
> the EPC process could fall down is where the bulding is not of normal
> tile roof and brick wall construction. It did, or so I've been told,
> regard a thatched roof as being uninsulated if there wasn't any
> insulation in the loft space.
That was something I noted with mine. It described the loft as
"uninsulated" and quoted the energy efficiency of this as hence "very
poor". The fact that I had converted practically all the loft space into
habitable rooms, and insulated everything to higher than building regs
requirements did not seem to factor. I even gave him the details of the
construction. The very small amount of space that remained as "loft" was
easily visible by the expedient of opening a cupboard door and looking
at the 100mm of PIR foam lining everything, and yet he did not seem to
think that was within his remit!
>> The suggested remedies are simply a boilerplate list of things that
>> could be done. The only concession being to filter out those not
>> immediately applicable.
>>
> Yersss....
>
> I'll not argue except to say that the boilerplate list is there for a
> reason.
>
> It was suggested that I replace the convector heaters which run on a
> timer only when I'm home and an hour or so either side with storage
> heaters, which store up heat when I'm in and let it out while I'm at
> work, for instance. If someone's in all day, then they make sense.
--
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes:
>
> That was something I noted with mine. It described the loft as
> "uninsulated" and quoted the energy efficiency of this as hence "very
> poor". The fact that I had converted practically all the loft space into
> habitable rooms, and insulated everything to higher than building regs
> requirements did not seem to factor. I even gave him the details of the
> construction. The very small amount of space that remained as "loft" was
> easily visible by the expedient of opening a cupboard door and looking
> at the 100mm of PIR foam lining everything, and yet he did not seem to
> think that was within his remit!
The folks doing the EPC are mostly clueless. The government originally
thought people with a background in the building trade would come forward
to train, but they actually got no one from the building trade and mostly
people who were unemployed and unskilled. They had to significantly dumb
down the assessment to match the people they got, which is why the EPCs
are so inaccurate as to be useless in many cases.
Apparently, still a lot of houses sold without one.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Tim Watts
2011 13:43:
> Apparently, still a lot of houses sold without one.
>
So is it a legal requirement that an EPC is required to convey - or just
something the solicitors are scared to be without in case they get sued?
--
Tim Watts
Andrew Gabriel
The other thing is that in many other EU countries, even if they had
a similar piece of legislation, absolutely no one would take any notice
of it.
David J
A final reference to SAP 2005 on which the EPC is based.
There is a clause that enquires what percentage of the light sockets
are fitted with low energy lamps.
This specification is aimed at new constructions. So how many new
houses are sold with all the light fittings installed?
Andrew Gabriel
David J <da...@btelecom.invalid> writes:
>
> A final reference to SAP 2005 on which the EPC is based.
>
> There is a clause that enquires what percentage of the light sockets
> are fitted with low energy lamps.
>
> This specification is aimed at new constructions. So how many new
> houses are sold with all the light fittings installed?
The two near me were, and all decorated too. I suspect they would
find them significantly harder to sell otherwise, or fetch a lower
price (significantly lower than the cost of decorating and lights).
A.Lee
> In article <4j60j6h03cu9p3vjv...@4ax.com>,
> David J <da...@btelecom.invalid> writes:
> >
> > A final reference to SAP 2005 on which the EPC is based.
> >
> > There is a clause that enquires what percentage of the light sockets
> > are fitted with low energy lamps.
> >
> > This specification is aimed at new constructions. So how many new
> > houses are sold with all the light fittings installed?
>
> The two near me were, and all decorated too. I suspect they would
> find them significantly harder to sell otherwise, or fetch a lower
> price (significantly lower than the cost of decorating and lights).
It's part of the Building Regs now that the installer has to comply with
- 75% of new lights have to be 'energy savers'.
I'd presume it would be hard to comply if you left plain bayonet
fittings dangling with no bulbs in them.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Skipweasel
+.com says...
> It's part of the Building Regs now that the installer has to comply with
> - 75% of new lights have to be 'energy savers'.
> I'd presume it would be hard to comply if you left plain bayonet
> fittings dangling with no bulbs in them.
>
Since you can get CFLs for 10p or so (dunno why, but I've seen them in
all sorts of places at that price) it's hardly a major expense to
populate all the pendants.
--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.
John Rumm
Building regs require the *fittings* to be low energy - i.e. they can't
be ordinary BC or ES lamp holders, but must be a type that only take low
energy bulbs.
(hence why many electricians have a set of them to install in new builds
to get a house signed off by building control... the fittings can then
move onto the next place!)
ARWadsworth
> On 15/01/2011 18:28, Skipweasel wrote:
>> In article<1jv5bli.mc2jto1wo2r5sN%alan@darkroom.+.com>,
>> alan@darkroom. +.com says...
>>> It's part of the Building Regs now that the installer has to comply
>>> with - 75% of new lights have to be 'energy savers'.
>>> I'd presume it would be hard to comply if you left plain bayonet
>>> fittings dangling with no bulbs in them.
>>>
>>
>> Since you can get CFLs for 10p or so (dunno why, but I've seen them
>> in all sorts of places at that price) it's hardly a major expense to
>> populate all the pendants.
>
> Building regs require the *fittings* to be low energy - i.e. they
> can't be ordinary BC or ES lamp holders, but must be a type that only
> take low energy bulbs.
>
> (hence why many electricians have a set of them to install in new
> builds to get a house signed off by building control... the fittings
> can then move onto the next place!)
A far greener solution than actually leaving them in the house for the new
owners to throw away
--
Adam
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes:
> On 15/01/2011 18:28, Skipweasel wrote:
>> In article<1jv5bli.mc2jto1wo2r5sN%alan@darkroom.+.com>, alan@darkroom.
>> +.com says...
>>> It's part of the Building Regs now that the installer has to comply with
>>> - 75% of new lights have to be 'energy savers'.
>>> I'd presume it would be hard to comply if you left plain bayonet
>>> fittings dangling with no bulbs in them.
>>>
>>
>> Since you can get CFLs for 10p or so (dunno why, but I've seen them in
>> all sorts of places at that price) it's hardly a major expense to
>> populate all the pendants.
>
> Building regs require the *fittings* to be low energy - i.e. they can't
> be ordinary BC or ES lamp holders, but must be a type that only take low
> energy bulbs.
I've seen it suggested that this is being removed from building regs,
because of phasing out of filament lamps.
> (hence why many electricians have a set of them to install in new builds
> to get a house signed off by building control... the fittings can then
> move onto the next place!)
--
Skipweasel
and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk says...
> I've seen it suggested that this is being removed from building regs,
> because of phasing out of filament lamps.
>
Talking of building regs - who would we lobby to get FENSA's monopoly on
installing windows removed as unnecessary red tape?
Andy Burns
> Talking of building regs - who would we lobby to get FENSA's monopoly on
> installing windows removed as unnecessary red tape?
http://www.hmg.gov.uk/yourfreedom/
Probably as fruitful as the Number 10 petitions website though ... Oh
too late, the site seems to have closed already ...