Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee 11 November 2025
I will give my view on that, and then I will let my team come in with anything else that they would like to add. First, the whole thrust of our proposed changes is to empower consumers to understand more about the buildings that they are buying or renting. To do that, we need to have accurate and up-to-date information. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that they have such information and understanding that, as you said, the frequency with which EPCs are required creates additional obligations for building owners. To our mind, the move from 10 to five years strikes that balance. Ultimately, we are asking that a property has only one more EPC in a decade, which, to me, feels like a proportionate way to ensure up-to-date and accurate information. When the committee heard evidence, bodies such as Which?, and others, were clear on that, too.
In both the social and private rented sectors, particularly when a landlord has a large portfolio, we are not just talking about them having to make one more certificate available. We have been considering how to work with the social rented sector on a framework for the procurement of EPCs for a large number of properties. We think that that could reduce costs by up to 20 per cent. The majority of PRS landlords have one property, but I am aware and conscious that some have more. We have been working with them on guidance for reusing data, for example, when updating an EPC.
I hope that, in all those ways, we can make what I think is a proportionate change all the less burdensome. I am also interested in and open minded to the idea that the validity period could move back to 10 years once a heat retention rating C has been achieved, but we will keep that under review.