July 2007

The simple solution to our energy problem...

Canada shows the way

HOW many Government ministers does it take to change a lightbulb? One to put it in and three to turn the chair they’re standing on!

It’s an old joke with a modern twist, but one that is all the more meaningful, given the way that Ruth Kelly, Yvette Cooper, Nick Raynsford and co have managed to turn what should have been a straightforward energy efficiency issue into a full blown legislative shambles.

So let’s go right back to the drawing board and offer our own solution, starting with the complete withdrawal of all this crazy HIPs nonsense.

The main question should be how can the Government encourage homeowners to become more energy efficient, so it can meet its EU and Kyoto targets?

I believe it should take a leaf out of the Canadian Government’s book, where the Office of Energy Efficiency of Natural Resources Canada (www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com) licenses advisors to assess the use of energy in the home.

Property owners who undertake recommended improvements, such as increasing loft insulation or replacing inefficient boilers, are then eligible to apply for government grants to offset the cost.

In nearly a decade more than 270,000 Canadian property owners have had their properties assessed and if they had undertaken all the recommended improvements, it is estimated they would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by almost 4.6 tonnes a year per house.

Yet nowhere have I heard our own Government publicly make the link between grants — which they offer to those on benefits or income support, or which are available through local authorities and energy providers — and Energy Performance Certificates.

I’m not averse to the scheme being compulsory, but the next suggestion I would proffer is that it should be the purchaser, not the vendor, who pays for an EPC, since they are the ones who would benefit from making the improvements identified.

Instead of charging for EPCs based on how many bedrooms or how big the property is, it could be done on the amount of work that needs doing - with those properties in disrepair paying a higher ‘penalty’. This could then be offset by grants to encourage the homeowner to carry out the work. It means that properties in good condition won’t have to pay as much. Sellers will also recognise they may want to do some work up front so that buyers are not put off by paying a larger EPC bill.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Local Government Secretary, Andrew Stunell MP, made the point that there are five million homes in the UK with cavity walls but no cavity wall insulation — and that in his own case it cost just £250 to have it installed.

If the EPC makes people aware their walls aren’t insulated and they go on to do something about, that’s a positive step.

Wouldn’t it have made even more sense if the Government had paid towards all these properties being insulated, rather than wasting millions of pounds on HIPs?

Which leads me to my final point. If the EPC becomes a stand-alone product, there would be no need to change the system of who pays for searches, and no need to package the product as a HIP, especially as there’s now no need for them to be ready by the first day of marketing.

The Domestic Energy Assessors and Home Inspectors would be back in business, and the Government would have salvaged a shred of credibility in its attempts to show the world that we’re genuine about reducing our carbon footprint and not just dipping a toe in the water.

Is it time for us to pull out of newspapers?

THE writing is well and truly on the wall for newspapers.

Internet advertising has now overtaken national newspaper advertising with a massive 41.2 per cent leap during the past year — and the trend is set to rise.

So what are newspapers doing in response to counter this trend? Reducing their ad rates? Offering incentives? Giving us ,ore bang for our buck? The truth is, not as much as they should be.

Right now, they should be quaking in their boots because estate agencies up and down the length of this fine isle are going to take a lot less convincing as to where they put their ad spend — and that’s with the major property portals.

Around four out of five of all property inquiries are now being generated via the web, for a fraction of the ad spend in newspapers.

When a few estate agencies start removing their advertising in their local papers, it won’t take much for a critical mass to be reached and the rest will follow.

It’s already happening in parts of London. It will only take a few cards to be pulled out and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

I’ve been talking to newspaper executives for some time about this and, in fairness, a few have taken note.

But nowhere near enough. Some have even put up their prices.

So my advice to fellow estate agents is to bargain hard and bring the prices down — they need you right now and are willing to negotiate.

Otherwise, they will be making the news themselves — for the wrong reasons.

No wonder confusion reigns

IN all the excitement over Home Information Packs, everyone seems to have forgotten why they were being introduced in the first place — to stop gazumping, speed up property sales and better regulate the industry.

So, will the new arrangements stop gazumping?

Well, perhaps — if an Energy Performance Certificate had included some elements of a Homebuyer’s Report and both buyers and sellers were forced to pay a significant deposit that they lose if they pull out.

What about speeding up sales?

With no requirement to have a Pack in place before marketing and the prospect of not enough Domestic Energy Assessors, everything that slows down a property sale is still possible.

As for regulation, there’s now a big question mark over how this will happen, since the compulsory HIPs redress scheme surely won’t apply to those who don’t have four-bed properties on their books.

It’s no wonder that confusion reigns.