January 28, 2026 4:12 pm

Insert Lead Generation
Nikka Sulton

Housing campaign group Generation Rent has spoken out against Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, accusing him of weakening the government’s proposed rules on energy efficiency standards for rental homes in England and Wales.

The group says the revised policy will leave hundreds of thousands of tenants living in poorly insulated homes and struggling with high energy bills, despite the government’s stated aim to reduce fuel poverty and cut carbon emissions.

Last week, Mr Miliband confirmed a new deadline requiring all landlords to improve their rental properties to an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of C or above by October 2030. This requirement will apply to all rented homes, including properties with existing tenants as well as new lettings, unless a formal exemption is granted.

The announcement follows several years of debate over how strict the new energy rules should be and how much landlords should be expected to spend on upgrades such as insulation, better heating systems and double glazing.

Under earlier proposals, landlords would have been required to invest up to £15,000 per property to meet the new EPC standard. However, the government has now reduced this maximum amount to £10,000 per home.

In addition, properties valued at less than £100,000 will face even lower spending limits. These lower-value homes will be allowed to stop improvement work once they reach their reduced cap, even if the property still does not achieve an EPC rating of C.

The government has also confirmed that any qualifying energy efficiency work carried out from October 2025 onwards can be counted towards the spending cap. This means landlords who begin improvements before the 2030 deadline will be able to include those costs as part of their required investment.

Although landlords who fail to comply with the new rules could face fines of up to £30,000, Generation Rent argues that the policy still contains too many loopholes and exemptions to be truly effective.

In a public statement, the campaign group said the government had “watered down” its original proposals after pressure from landlord groups and property industry bodies.

Generation Rent warned that the reduced spending cap would result in far fewer homes being upgraded than originally expected. It said that under the £15,000 limit, around 2.3 million rental homes would have been brought up to EPC C standard, leaving only about 158,000 properties exempt.

However, with the new £10,000 cap, the group estimates that an additional 395,000 homes will now avoid being improved. This significantly reduces the overall impact of the policy, according to the organisation.

The group also raised serious concerns about where many of these exempt homes are located. It believes that properties valued under £100,000 are often found in regions that already experience high levels of fuel poverty and poor housing quality.

Generation Rent says this could widen existing inequalities, with tenants in poorer areas more likely to remain in cold and inefficient homes while better-off regions see more upgrades.

Another issue highlighted by the group is that spending £10,000 may not always be enough to raise a property’s EPC rating to C. Some older buildings, particularly those with solid walls, may need more costly measures to meet the standard.

Solid wall insulation has been singled out as especially problematic. While it can significantly improve energy efficiency, it has previously been linked to poor installation and damp problems in some homes, which has made landlords reluctant to use it.

The group also criticised a rule allowing landlords to claim exemption if energy improvements reduce a property’s value by more than 5%. Generation Rent argues this creates another escape route that could be widely used to avoid carrying out upgrades.

When all the exemptions are added together, the campaign group estimates that around 707,000 rental homes could still remain below EPC rating C after the policy is introduced.

It also claims that approximately 578,000 households may continue to live in fuel poverty as a result of the weaker requirements.

Generation Rent says this outcome would be deeply unfair, as the people most affected are likely to be low-income renters who already spend a large share of their income on heating and electricity.

“It’s a real concern that those who lose out will predominantly be those renters most in need,” the group said in its statement.

The organisation also warned that poor housing standards have wider effects beyond energy bills. Cold and damp homes are linked to health problems such as asthma, heart disease and mental stress, particularly among elderly tenants and families with children.

Campaigners argue that improving EPC standards is not just an environmental issue but also a public health and social justice matter.

While the government has presented the new policy as a balanced approach between tenant protection and landlord affordability, Generation Rent believes the changes place too much emphasis on reducing costs for landlords rather than protecting renters.

The group said it welcomed the introduction of a clear 2030 deadline but stressed that the weakened spending limits risk undermining the original purpose of the reform.

It added that without stronger rules, the government’s plan may fail to deliver meaningful change in the quality of private rented housing across the country.

Generation Rent has called on ministers to review the policy again and consider restoring the higher spending cap or reducing the number of exemptions allowed.

The group says stronger action is needed if the government is serious about tackling fuel poverty, improving housing conditions and meeting its climate targets.

As the 2030 deadline approaches, the debate over how far landlords should go in upgrading their properties is likely to remain a key issue for both tenants and the property sector.

For now, campaigners fear that the revised rules will leave too many renters behind and allow hundreds of thousands of homes to remain inefficient, expensive to heat and unsuitable for long-term living.

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
>