it'll undoubtedly save some people money, but I'd be prepared to eat my shorts if it didn't also end up costing others money as the predicted financial savings fail to materialise and the actual savings don't cover the repayments including the interest and bureaucratic costs involved in the scheme.

I'm pretty sure we'll be sticking to undercutting the green deal companies prices, and incorporating the work into the installation costs of PV to get band D or over instead of this nonsense.

But there is always the option (medical conditions notwithstanding) of turning down the thermostat to save some dosh once properly insulated... So there is an extra choice. I had April's gas consumption well under 4kWh/d including cooking and DHW! Not many ciggies per day from my gas bill.

Rgds

Damon

That last point is well made. A factor I'd never considered before. It's essentially a charge on the property and you're right, I can't see a solicitor being happy with it either.

And probably another one anytime soon.

But the Green Deal is really designed to address the issue of the lump sum capital spend where home owners won't invest because they know they won't get the money back when they move house. No one wants to invest in something with a 20 year payback if they won't breakeven during their time in the property.

Unfortunately DECC seem to have ignored any psychological assessment of how we humans actually behave in these circumstances.

There is even less reason for DECC's blindness given the results of the pilot schemes (PAYS) that were run.

In Sutton 50% of households initially approached were not interested in the scheme - and this was with the added incentives of a 40% grant and a zero interest loan for the 60% balance.

Except that the first 26% reduction is worth having, and rising energy prices will surely incentivise/permit more works later for these or other houses.

But, yes, a 50% reduction would be more like it, and doesn't require herculean effort as I know myself.

Rgds

Damon

It's worth reading the DECC PAYS report in detail. Many installed PV with obvious financial savings although this did not apply in the Sutton (mainly) or Gentoo pilots.

In total 811 measures were installed across 311 households with d/glazing, PV and boiler upgrades being the 3 main ones (these alone totalled 412 or just over half the total).

I wonder what the resulting saving figures would be if PV was excluded from all the results.

The 72% figure relates to the number of householders (n=92) who were confident that the measures installed would result in them making savings. It is not a figure based on real energy bill data.

"Though the quantitative survey was undertaken early in the post-installation period, most of the householders said they were not checking bill savings from energy bills against the predicted savings from their report."

"46% of householders reported they had checked their bill savings post installation (or checked the amount of electricity the solar panels were generating)."

"A third felt that they were saving more on their energy bills than they were paying back in monthly instalments. It seemed that many were not overly worried about the actual energy or bill savings they were achieving. Many householders were trying to reconcile the lower savings with recent bad weather or other external factors – price rises, changes in circumstance."

"Due to tight delivery timescales only 29 householders, at the time of interview, had experienced a sufficient period30 living with the installations to comment on whether they had observed any changes to their energy bills."

"14 out of the 29 (48%) reported that their energy bills were now lower. However, few had hard evidence or figures to provide."

So 14 out of 311 installs reported actual lower energy bills.

Ted= "But the Green Deal is really designed to address the issue of the lump sum capital spend where home owners won't invest because they know they won't get the money back when they move house. No one wants to invest in something with a 20 year payback if they won't breakeven during their time in the property."

I thought those energy ratings in the home buyers packs were supposed to overcome that. - Oh that's right another government scheme that waisted every ones time and money!

I am unconvinced of the line here

I would like to see energy being saved at no additional cost which is what I really like about the ideas behind the green deal.

I can think of at least two landlords who need a "reason" to upgrade their properties. The one can't let his flat and asked me why. I suggested he'd always have a problem finding someone who wants to live in a fridge.