The Real Risk Isn’t EPC Targets — It’s Guesswork

There is a growing tendency in the property industry to talk about energy efficiency as though it sits neatly inside a compliance conversation.

EPC ratings, MEES deadlines, retrofit grants, future legislation. Most discussions tend to orbit around obligations and timelines, usually accompanied by varying levels of confusion about what is actually happening and when.

The conversation I had with Simon Bones made me think there is a much bigger issue sitting underneath all of this, and it is not regulation itself.

It is uncertainty.

Because if you spend any time speaking to landlords at the moment, particularly smaller portfolio landlords, what becomes obvious very quickly is that most are not resisting change as much as they are struggling to navigate the sheer volume of conflicting information surrounding it. One person tells them to install a heat pump. Another says solar is the answer. Someone else tells them to wait because the legislation may change again anyway. Costs vary wildly, advice is inconsistent and the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant.

In that environment, many people default to the same response: delay the decision and hope greater clarity emerges later.

The problem is that uncertainty itself eventually becomes a risk.

What Simon articulated particularly well during the podcast was that the industry still tends to approach retrofit and energy efficiency backwards. Too often, conversations start with products rather than outcomes. People jump straight to asking what technology should be installed before properly understanding what problem they are actually trying to solve within that specific property.

That may sound obvious, but it highlights one of the biggest structural weaknesses in how retrofit discussions are currently happening across the sector.

Properties are not uniform.

Different construction types behave differently. Different occupancy patterns produce different energy demands. Measures that work brilliantly in one property can produce disappointing or financially irrational outcomes in another. Yet much of the wider conversation still treats retrofit almost as though there should be a universal solution.

That creates two problems simultaneously.

First, landlords become sceptical because advice often feels commercially motivated rather than genuinely strategic. Second, agents are increasingly expected to advise on issues that sit far beyond traditional lettings expertise without always having the tools or confidence to do so properly.

That tension is becoming more important because the role of the agent is quietly shifting.

Historically, landlords primarily looked to agents for marketing, tenant sourcing and operational management. Increasingly, however, landlords are expecting guidance on broader asset strategy. Regulation, energy performance, future-proofing and long-term viability are all becoming part of the conversation, whether agencies actively want them there or not.

And that creates a fairly uncomfortable challenge for the sector.

Because there is a meaningful difference between providing informed guidance and simply repeating fragmented information that may or may not be correct six months later.

The reason this matters so much is that the financial implications attached to retrofit decisions are not small. Poorly planned works can cost tens of thousands of pounds whilst delivering surprisingly limited improvements in real-world efficiency or tenant comfort. In some cases, landlords are effectively being encouraged towards expensive upgrades without first establishing whether the property itself has been properly assessed in terms of heat loss, ventilation or actual usage patterns.

Simon’s approach cuts directly against that instinct to rush towards solutions before understanding the wider picture. What Genous is trying to build is not simply another retrofit recommendation platform, but a more structured framework for decision-making itself. One that prioritises understanding the property holistically before determining which interventions genuinely make sense.

That distinction feels increasingly important as the industry moves further into this period of transition.

Because despite all the political noise surrounding EPC reform and net zero targets, most landlords are still asking relatively straightforward questions. What work actually needs doing? In what order? What impact will it realistically have? And how do they avoid spending large amounts of money inefficiently?

At the moment, too many of those questions still produce vague or contradictory answers.

That uncertainty affects tenants too, although often less visibly. Energy efficiency is not simply an environmental conversation anymore. It directly shapes affordability, comfort and long-term housing quality. A property that performs poorly thermally is not just more expensive to run, it is often less healthy and less comfortable to live in overall.

Which means this is one of those areas where the interests of landlords, tenants and agents are actually more aligned than they sometimes appear.

Nobody benefits from poor information, rushed decision-making or reactive compliance spending.

What struck me most during the conversation with Simon was that beneath all the technical detail, this is fundamentally a conversation about confidence. Confidence in the advice being given. Confidence in the sequencing of decisions. Confidence that investments being made today will still make sense several years from now.

Without that confidence, hesitation becomes inevitable.

And whilst legislation may continue shifting around the edges, the broader direction of travel is fairly obvious. Energy performance expectations are only going to increase over time. The real challenge for the industry is not deciding whether to engage with that reality, but whether it can move away from fragmented, product-led conversations towards something more strategic and evidence-based.

Because ultimately, the greatest risk facing many landlords may not be regulation itself.

It may simply be making expensive decisions based on incomplete understanding.

And in a market already full of noise, that is precisely where clearer thinking becomes most valuable.