Friday, 28 November 2014

Survey reveals nine of the 17 biggest landlords in Britain have no firm plans

Landlords in fix over green deal

The majority of large social landlords are not planning to allow tenants to make their own arrangements under the government’s flagship energy efficiency scheme.

Citing fears about quality of works, damage to buildings and lenders’ concerns, landlords said they do not want tenants to agree their own deals when the green deal goes live in October.

An Inside Housing snap survey revealed that despite most landlords having no green deal plans in place, just two of the 17 largest landlords in Great Britain would grant consent for tenants to take up green deal offers. Nine landlords ruled out allowing tenants to commission the work while five said they had not decided.

Under the green deal, due to launch on 1 October, households will be able to receive loans to carry out energy-efficiency works on their homes. The cost of the measures – usually insulation – will then be recouped through resulting savings in energy bills.

Accredited green deal providers, mainly for-profit companies, will be approaching tenants to offer them green deal packages. If tenants do not get consent from their landlords they may not benefit from reduced fuel bills from October.

The survey also reveals just two of the 17 landlords, Gentoo and London & Quadrant, plan to become green deal providers, while three plan to partner with other providers. Nine of the 17 landlords have no firm policy with little more than a month to go before the scheme starts

Simon Dow, chief executive of 60,000-home Guinness Partnership, said allowing tenants to commission their own works could lead to ‘difficult conversations’ with lenders, who might be concerned about alterations to properties used as loan security.

Readers' comments (15)

  • Andy Boddington

    Sadly, the staff in housing associations tend to be control freaks and as a result distrust their tenants doing anything. Many of the poorest in society will be consigned to live in energy inefficient buildings unless housing associations allow them to take advantage of the Green Deal themselves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ''The cost of the measures – usually insulation – will then be recouped through resulting savings in energy bills''

    So a guy in a nice suit turns up and sells the tenant a loan,they can't afford,in the first place?.

    Hey don't worry about it,you will save that,and more on your energy bills.

    Yeah right,as the saying goes :).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Christopher Dale

    As I understand it Dennis, the repayments cannot be more than the savings made through the lower bills. It does however beg the question that with the amount of profit generated by the privately owned energy companies, why they can't carry out this work gratis. Probably because the shareholders will get twitchy at such an idea!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chris

    The tenant need not worry Dennis, as the loan is listed against the property and not the person. This is probably why the landlords are not happy with it. Mind you, if they want the gain without the pain then they could always do the decent thing.

    But taking into account current government policy and the likelihood that the other Tory Parties will not oppose it, and will embrace it if in power, then tenants need not worry about taking on the debt as they will soon be removed from their home anyway, and then siloed into the private sector without any call to energy efficiency but plenty of calls upon what little cash they may have!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Green Deal is a scam designed to shift the cost of energy saving measures from government/the energy companies to householders. At the moment, tenants in receipt of JSA and other means-tested benefits can get loft, cavity and solid wall insulation free. Under the Green Deal they will be paying for it in higher energy prices. So, more energy efficient home, but higher energy costs. And the charge is on the property, so we could see properties being blighted by high energy costs for years to come. Lots of companies and consultants stand to make lots of money out of this scheme; guess who will pay the bill.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • i think you have hit this one on the head dave
    another aspect is that if people use less energy the utility companies will just put up their prices to protect their bonus fund - sorry profit margins for future investments

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Christopher Dale

    It's been said before on this site, and I'll say it again - nationalise the lot of them and let them be run for the genuine good of the public, including funding energy efficiency schemes and giving meaningful discounts to vulnerable groups.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • that is heresy IF - running public services for the public good at a fair cost
    unless perhaps they start to burn the undeserving poor as fuel.
    chris might have a view on that initiative

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Christopher Dale

    This is perhaps why the pasty tax was scrapped Philthy. The Governmen realised that with more fat reserves, the poor would burn better.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chris

    I understand Philthy that humans make poor fuel unless heated to a considerable temperature first, which takes a disporoportionate amount of fuel, and hence cost to achieve any gain from the human. This may explain the previous tendency to confiscate all of the human's possessions prior to burning, to offset the energy cost to reach the optimum temperature at which some energy return may be gained.

    We could do with a scientist to put some clear equations into this so as to be sure, but as this is a Housing Forum, we are unlikely to find a competent one!

    Mind you thinking on it:
    Shapps is taking away the homes of the poor
    Ids is taking away the incomes of the poor
    Osborne is taking away the wealth of the poor

    Perhaps the confiscation to offset cost is already happening - still at least with winter coming there will be something warm to look forwards to!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register

Related

Articles

Resources

  • A career fix

    19 June 2014

    Apprenticeships provided by construction firms are helping students straight out of school into employment. Stuart Spear takes a closer look at the opportunities available

  • Mind over matter

    09/05/2014

    A Merseyside landlord is training its staff to become mental health first aiders to help them support both colleagues and tenants, as Helen Clifton reports

IH Subscription