Personal HIPS experiences - please let us know.

Selected topics that have generated a lot of interest.
Post Reply
Penners
Posts: 17309
Joined: Wed 10th May, 2006 2:09 pm
Location: Suffolk, England

Post by Penners » Wed 5th Sep, 2007 10:37 am

Nemesis wrote:if you feel you have something to say please say it. It all gets taken note of.
Do you mean taken note of by the Government?

Goodness! When did that start happening?

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Wed 5th Sep, 2007 10:41 am

Well, it all works slowly, and CSC reports are usually dismissed in the response by HMG, but any evidence submitted is taken note of by the all-party CSC.

Drip by drip ... it's called democracy and it's how things work.
if no-one complains then all will think it all OK...

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Thu 6th Sep, 2007 12:56 pm

From the latest Heritage Link:

English Heritage: Home Information packs and traditional buildings

From 1st August anyone selling a house with four or more bedrooms is legally required to put together a home information pack for potential home buyers. This will be extended to three bedroom houses from 10th September see http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp ... iceID=2488 .


English Heritage offers three interim guidance notes to home inspectors and energy assessors on assessing the energy performance of traditionally constructed and historic homes. Approximately 25% of existing dwellings are of traditional construction and this includes most listed buildings.

The Home Information Pack guidance includes Energy Performance Certificates for historic and traditional homes, Advice for Domestic Energy Assessors, and SAP ratings for historic and traditional homes. All three are downloadable from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/hips

Energy Performance Certificates assess the likely energy performance of homes and are generated by a software package which takes data from a survey completed on site by the Domestic Energy Assessor. The software is designed primarily with modern dwellings in mind and makes generalised assumptions about all homes based on standard, usually modern, methods and materials of construction. Most importantly, it automatically assumes that all traditional building types are less energy efficient than modern ones, an assumption which has yet to be empirically validated.

In the guidance, English Heritage advises home owners to adopt such recommendations with caution and urges Domestic Energy Assessors to override them if necessary. Only those recommendations that the assessor is certain to cause no damage to the long term performance of the building or diminish its appeal should appear as final recommendations on the certificate. Individuals carrying out recommended work to a listed building should also secure consent before carrying out any works. Back

EH: Don't rush into energy saving changes

Commenting on the new requirements, Bill Martin, Conservation Director at English Heritage, said 'We all have a responsibility to make our homes more energy efficient and no building type should be exempt from this. Energy Certificates will help to raise awareness, but it is important for the public to know that the ways to achieve energy efficiency in modern housing are different from that in traditional houses.

'The current system of certifying all housing types using a standardised method which does not consider the fundamental differences in the fabric between old and modern buildings can produce incorrect and highly misleading assessments. Traditional buildings are likely to be rated low in energy efficiency and given a high estimate of fuel consumption under the present system, and we are concerned that the public will rush to make changes. We hope with these guidance notes home owners will have a better understanding of what the certificates really mean and be in a better position to judge how valid the recommendations are, avoiding costly and potentially illegal mistakes along the way.'

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Tue 11th Sep, 2007 10:57 am

Torygraph latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ips109.xml


' Loopholes in the new regulations have already been exposed. Canny sellers can avoid the packs in a number of ways.

One is to remove a bed from a bedroom to create a three-bedroom house with a study or boxroom; another is to cancel a pack after it has been ordered - a pack need only have been "ordered", not purchased, to market a property; a third is paying the £200 penalty fine if caught without one - far cheaper than a HIP, and getting caught is unlikely in any case, as trading standards officials have admitted that they don't have the resources to enforce the packs.'

borischarlton
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon 13th Nov, 2006 2:51 pm
Location: Highworth

Post by borischarlton » Tue 11th Sep, 2007 11:40 am

I think that you will find that the fine is £200 a day that the house is on the market without a pack, not as inferred £200 in total.
I find the most annoying thing about H.I.P.s is that it would seem you can spout any old rubbish about them because there are so few that have taken the time to really find out the details. As the packs stand they are a total joke, however, in their origonal form I think they would have made a real difference. Its such a shame that the govenment caved in.
Rob

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Tue 11th Sep, 2007 11:47 am

I don't think that they caved in as much as discovered that it was all unworkable.

Pford75
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu 3rd Aug, 2006 9:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Post by Pford75 » Thu 13th Sep, 2007 10:59 am

The original idea was workable...it functions in similar form in many other countries globally. Scotland has a few differences, but the core concept of an offer on property being binding is a good one. You are then left with the question of whether to force vendors to pull together the information or prospective buyers to invest before making their binding offer.

At the end of the day, as others have pointed out.....the market will decide what any property is worth...not the contents of a report. I can see that the energy certificates are superficial, but I'm surprised that some people who are as passionate as they are about CO2 emissions...see them as entirely bad things.

Sure, they may not be 100% accurate, but if they convince 10% of the population to insulate their loft, isn't that a good thing?

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Thu 13th Sep, 2007 11:28 am

I wonder how many have NOT insulated their loft?

It seems to me a waste of time, money and energy to have to commission a pretty useless report. One which even EH has reservations about!

skier-hughes
Posts: 3417
Joined: Wed 10th May, 2006 9:35 am
Location: Staffs, UK
Contact:

Post by skier-hughes » Thu 13th Sep, 2007 11:47 am

Every house we've bought has always needed loft insulation, this last one (period property) being no exception.

Pford75
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu 3rd Aug, 2006 9:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Post by Pford75 » Thu 13th Sep, 2007 11:52 am

Likewise...the reality is that there are lots of houses out there, without adequate/any loft insulation. If the report has only a small impact on these, surely that's a good thing?

It does seem slightly inconsistent to bang on about CO2 and yet at the same time moan about something which will probably have a significant impact on reducing emissions

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Thu 13th Sep, 2007 12:16 pm

Oh, I'm not banging on or moaning, I just think that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut if the sum of it all is loft insulation.

There may be better ways of achieving that.

I wonder how much energy goes into loft insulation manufacture, all those factories having to be built, etc etc... :-)

As EH also said - there is much which could be recommended which is damaging.

I do think the way we sell homes requires reform also, but I was not convinced HIPS was the way ahead either.

PS I wonder if a study has been carried out to show how many homes have no insulation?

Pford75
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu 3rd Aug, 2006 9:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Post by Pford75 » Thu 13th Sep, 2007 1:02 pm

Good question re those without insulation and agree it would be worthwile to find out. The grants available at my LA level are on a sliding scale (ie. more grant available if you have less insulation)..having just had quotes for the loft, the contractor advised that he is busy full time quoting in Norfolk and almost all of his visits are to people without insulation...agree this is hardly definitive research..but seems to indicate that there are some out there.

I feel that the biggest missed opportunity with HIPS was the move to binding offers and eliminating gazumping.....have to agree that the current halfway house is a disaster....but I'd rather the gov't had implemented the whole thing, than nothing at all

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Mon 5th Nov, 2007 1:06 pm


Flyfisher
Posts: 9815
Joined: Sat 14th Oct, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Norfolk, UK

Post by Flyfisher » Sun 11th Nov, 2007 11:48 pm

From the timesonline article:

Briggs embarked on a £40,000 energy-saving programme . . . Thanks to all this eco-kit, Briggs’s energy bill is now £800 a month . . . . So far, so green.


Priceless :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nemesis
Posts: 9402
Joined: Sun 6th Aug, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Nemesis » Mon 12th Nov, 2007 1:18 pm

I gather that's half what it used to be.

Thanks to all this eco-kit, Briggs’s energy bill is now £800 a month – half what he was paying before. He also makes £100 a quarter by selling his excess electricity back to the National Grid.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest