Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
There is also the the broader issue that UK homes are very badly insulated and this needed dealing with even before the cost of living crisis.
Addressing poor insulation makes sense in terms of economics, environment, health and many other areas.
@RichardShaw ah yes, this is 100% right as well.
I'm all for preserving heritage through older housing etc... but that shouldn't be an excuse to not upgrade them to modern insulation standards. Not cheap, but not impossible, and as you say, pays itself back.
@gpollara @RichardShaw I'd agree with you, up to a point.
But, as one of the 13m, I see the problem not just as a lack of cash, but also the unwillingness of landowners/landlords (who are just as often leaseholders) to invest in cutting other people's bills.
In a tight housing market, it won't much affect rents or property values in the short-term,, so what's in it for them, exactly?
Insulation may pay returns, but if it's not to the "right" people, why would anyone bother?
@wibble @RichardShaw yes you're right. I guess what I was thinking is that this feels like the thing that needs the heavy hand of the state. Compelling home owners in general, including landlords, and perhaps with financial penalty for non compliance (e.g. Take a % rent if not properly insulated).
I realise this is bringing up ULEZ type debate. However you're right that the carrot approach not enough for the rental market, so perhaps there it has to be stick.
@gpollara @RichardShaw The heavy hand of the state is needed, but a very big ask after decades of "light touch" fundamentalism.
The ULEZ approach works because there's already infrastructure and ownership data. Property's wilfully murkier, and the best HRMC can manage is a voluntary disclosure scheme.
As for checking compliance, the Grenfell Inquiry heard a lot that's relevant about Fire Risk Assessments,, none of it reassuring, and that's hardly a new system.
Still, it must be possible...