Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2025: technical consultation analysis

Other Comments

Written Responses

Q7. Please provide any other commentary or observations you have on funding of the regulatory functions through lodgement fees, proposed in this consultation.

Overall, 18 respondents provided additional comments at this question, including nine organisations and nine individuals. Despite the focus of the question being on the funding of the regulatory functions, many of the comments discussed EPCs more broadly. Respondents typically focused on the quality of EPCs, enforcement of the regulations, and other practical concerns.

Low Payment Rates

Several respondents (including organisations and individuals) discussed the perceived low payments made to assessors and/or low charge rates for EPC lodgement and auditing. This was said to be challenging and restrictive in certain cases where the time input required from the assessor exceeded that covered by the charge rate. In particular, new build EPCs which may be complex and require more intensive assessments; older buildings with complex internal layouts and non-standard rooms; and remote, rural and island areas which involve significant travel distances were all highlighted as challenging given the low charge rates.

In addition, it was suggested that the low charges meant it was difficult to conduct adequate auditing and on-site inspections/verifications. Indeed, one respondent highlighted that the calculations in the consultation document appeared to suggest only one on-site audit/verification could be conducted per day. However, due to the low payments, they felt that an assessor would need to conduct more than one per day in order to make a living. It was felt that the payment rates promoted quantity over quality. A few organisations suggested that the low payment levels, combined with the onerous audit sampling criteria for those issuing a small number of EPCs per year, created complexity which discouraged them from being AOs.

One organisation welcomed any measures that would generate more funding; however, they did not feel that owner-occupiers or social landlords should face higher costs or penalties:

“We are of the view that Approved Organisations do not receive sufficient payments to undertake full, detailed, audits of EPCs, and that the current (low) payments deter them from doing so. Therefore… there is a strong justification for measures which bring more funding into this pot. However, we do not believe that owner-occupiers, for whom selling and buying properties can be an immensely stressful process, should face additional costs or higher penalties, and nor should registered social landlords as this sector is already heavily regulated and many local authorities are struggling to manage their budgets and staff time.” (Energy Focused Organisation)

EPC Affordability

In addition to the concern above about avoiding rising costs for owner-occupiers and social landlords, another organisation, who was supportive of the proposals overall, was concerned about landlords and property agents. They suggested that increased charges should be avoided for landlords and their property agents due to the financial challenges they experience.

Also concerned about landlords, one individual suggested that fees had already been increased to accommodate the additional requirements of the RdSAP 10. As such, they were concerned that fees would need to be raised again to cover the higher lodgement fee. They noted that this fee increase, combined with the need to renew certificates more often (every five years rather than every 10 years) would place a greater burden on landlords’ operating costs. Ultimately, they felt this unfairly targeted this group rather than sharing the costs among all users of the EPC system.

One organisation raised concerns about the affordability of EPC assessments, particularly for low-income groups. They stressed the importance of ensuring that any cost or frequency increases should not create barriers to compliance with the EPC requirements. Further, they advised that lodgement fees and penalty charges needed to be considered in relation to the wider affordability of EPCs.

Value of EPCs

A few respondents were concerned about the perceived value of the EPC itself. Two specific issues were cited as undermining their value. Firstly, the series of assumptions that were involved in the assessment and certification rather than accurate and rigorous testing was flagged. Secondly, the use of out of date information to perform calculations was noted (e.g. pricing for energy and building modifications, heat source models and window types, etc.). It was felt that the current proposals did nothing to tackle this and would not, therefore, improve quality or accuracy:

“The standard of the EPC should be a concern to the government. It is currently a laughing stock in the industry for its inconsistency and omissions.” (Individual)

Quality of Assessors

Another issue, linked to the perceived value of EPCs but also a distinct and stand-alone concern, was the quality of the assessors. A few respondents stressed the need to ensure that assessors and others involved in delivering the EPC requirements are appropriately trained and skilled, meet the professional standards, and have the correct professional insurances.

Strengthening training and oversight for assessors was said to be necessary for a number of reasons. This included ensuring that EPCs are accurate and consistent from the outset, thus reducing the need for in-depth auditing and increasing confidence in EPC data. It was also important to ensure the robustness and consistency of on-site audits and inspections, and to ensure adequate coverage of different building types.

Similarly, one individual argued that the EPC database should be maintained, audited and populated by skilled and knowledgeable professionals. They also suggested that the processes of AOs could be linked to professional Institutes, which would ensure quality control and professional conduct. Again, this would need to be supported by funding and involve knowledgeable and experienced professionals in the process.

Other Issues

One organisation discussed the need and approach for more effective enforcement of existing EPC regulations. They suggested that enforcement should be undertaken by a central enforcement body with access to both the EPC database and the Scottish landlord register to identify breaches and issue fines. Any money raised through this could help to fund the new regulatory functions and be reinvested to improve education, compliance and further enforcement. This respondent also suggested that additional funding could be generated by charging companies and commercial users for access to data on the EPC register:

“Additionally, funding could be generated by charging companies and commercial users for access to the EPC register data, which is widely used across the property industry. This would create a fair and practical revenue stream.” (Real Estate Focused Organisation)

Other issues (mentioned by one respondent each) are outlined below:

• No other options were available in relation to funding the regulatory functions
• The commitment to liaise with the UK Government on shared technical infrastructure and practice, and to monitor the approaches and experiences across the EU was seen as helpful
• The Scottish Government should provide a full statement on costs with a detailed breakdown in order to justify any changes
• Air-Conditioning Inspection Reports and certificates should be hosted on the central registry to improve accessibility and transparency
• Explore ways to maximise the application of Display Energy Certificates
• Provide assurance that no alternative lodgement facilities exist, for example, assessors making direct lodgements to the register (although another respondent advocated for this type of alternative approach at an earlier question in the consultation)

Negative Feedback and Concerns

A few respondents provided or reiterated negative perceptions. Each issue was mentioned by one respondent each, as follows:

• That increased fees and penalty charges were not expected to raise the quality of EPCs
• That the on-site audit and inspection function was excessive and impractical, and would add significant costs for implementation
• One individual who was against all the proposals advised the Scottish Government to “live within your means”

Workshop Events

Impact Assessment

What do you think the impact of our proposals in this consultation will have on various groups in Scotland?

Workshop event attendees were asked to consider any potential positive and negative impacts or unintended consequences of the proposals for various groups. This included impacts on people with protected characteristics, such as age (including children and older people); disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Comments were also welcomed on the impact for island and rural communities, socio-economic impacts, and data protection provision.

The only two groups discussed by attendees were those living in island, remote and rural areas, and those living with disabilities.

In relation to island, remote and rural areas, attendees urged the Scottish Government to consider costs and workforce capacity. For example, it was noted that higher costs apply for rural and island communities simply due to their location. In addition, the reduced validity period of EPCs (from 10 years to five years) will effectively double the workload, having a significant impact in areas with limited numbers of assessors.

It was also suggested that the EPC itself needed to reflect the differences that exist in unique landscapes and recognise that more traditional heat sources (such as wood burning stoves and peat) would continue to be used in island and remote rural areas.

One workshop attendee also stressed that the proposals needed to consider what was appropriate for those with disabilities to ensure they have better outcomes. No further detail was provided in relation to this view, however.

Other Comments

Workshop attendees also provided a small number of other comments, as follows:

• Low fees paid to AOs and assessors, with prices driven down by local authorities and housing associations looking for the cheapest contractors
• Consider using a map-based navigator for EPCs. Suggestions included linking this to existing map searches for planning and building consents on local authority websites, and/or accessing the assessments via Google Maps, with EPCs attached to properties. This would be an easy way for people to find their own EPCs, and act as a tool to avoid missed addresses or the use of wrong information
• Gaps in the capabilities of EPC were flagged, including a renewables lag, particularly for battery and solar, and in relation to airtightness and ventilation