Consultation on draft energy efficiency (domestic private rented property) (Scotland) regulations

Yes, we agree that the PRS MEES should be set at EPC HHR band C.

We support the Scottish Government’s view that Band C represents a good level of energy efficiency.

The private rented sector, as highlighted in the consultation, has the highest proportion of homes with poor energy performance – nearly half are rated EPC Band D or lower and 14% fall into Bands E, F or G. This is a key driver of the sector’s disproportionately high fuel poverty rate of 44%. 

Improving the energy efficiency of the building fabric is the most effective way to reduce household energy demand and therefore energy bills – key to tackling fuel poverty. Introducing a minimum standard of HHR Band C will help reduce fuel poverty rates in the private rented sector, ensuring tenants benefit from warmer, more affordable to heat homes.

Setting a minimum standard of EPC HHR band C would also ensure consistency with proposals for the social housing sector. This alignment will help enable mixed-tenure retrofit projects to be taken forward more easily. 

We note that the UK Government is currently considering the use of secondary metrics, such as heating system efficiency, alongside EPC ratings. In our response to the recent UK Government consultation, we supported the inclusion of a heating system metric as a secondary target. This may also be worth exploring further in the Scottish context to support a more comprehensive approach to improve energy performance in the private rented sector.

Yes, we agree that only new reformed EPCs should be used as a basis for the proposed MEES. 

While we recognise that this may mean a small proportion (c.20%) of properties that landlords may have thought would meet the standard may not, we support this approach because using only the new reformed EPCs will ensure that improvements focus on the fabric of buildings. This would strengthen the minimum energy efficiency standard’s ability to tackle poor energy efficiency, which is a key driver of high fuel poverty rates in the private rented sector.

We also support the approach because, as noted in the consultation, it will ensure there’s only one way to comply with the standard – supporting clear communication with landlords and tenants and simplifying monitoring and enforcement. 

No, we don’t agree that the backstop date for all PRS homes to comply with MEES should be 2033.

It’s our view that the backstop date should be 2030. 

In our response to the Scottish Governments 2023 Heat in Buildings Bill consultation, we noted our support for the Scottish Government’s proposal of a 2028 backstop date for the energy efficiency standards in domestic private rented sector properties.

However, given delays in progressing the Heat in Buildings Bill, we recognise that 2028 may no longer be a realistic backstop date. In this context, we consider 2030 to be a more appropriate and achievable target.

Setting the date at 2030 would help to ensure that progress is made at a pace that reflects the urgency of Scotland’s fuel poverty and climate change targets. Progress in improving the energy efficiency of the private rented sector has already been slow, and pushing the backstop date to 2033 will delay action further and leave many tenants in fuel poverty for considerably longer than would be the case if the backstop date were set earlier.

A backstop date of 2030 would also align with the backstop date proposed by the UK Government for new minimum standards in England and Wales, which are broadly equivalent to those currently being proposed to Scotland.

Yes, we agree that the MEES should apply to properties being let to new tenants from 2028.

We support this approach because, as the consultation highlights, it allows for a phased roll out of the necessary retrofit works, helping supply chains to develop steadily and reducing the risk of last-minute bottlenecks ahead of the backstop date.

Yes, we agree that, regardless of changes to the repairing standard, that crofter, small landholders and agricultural holdings should be excluded from PRS MEES. 

We do however note that fuel poverty is more common in rural and remote parts of Scotland than elsewhere in Scotland. According to the latest Scottish House Condition survey, 44% of households in remote rural areas and 35% in accessible rural areas are living in fuel poverty. 

Given this, if minimum standards aren’t introduced for these properties in the short term, proper consideration must be given to how households living in them can be better supported to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. A targeted package of assistance – tailored to the specific challenges faced by households living in these property types – may be needed to ensure progress in improving these homes doesn’t fall behind progress made in the rest of the private rented sector once minimum energy efficiency standards are introduced.

While the Home Energy Scotland specialist advice service already offers support to those living in these properties, we think that consideration needs to be given to additional assistance and incentives. This targeted support should also take into account the supply chain issues currently affecting some of these areas – particularly the limited availability of qualified installers – which may further constrain the ability of landlords to undertake necessary improvements.

No, we don’t agree that the regulations should exclude short-term holiday lets from the PRS MEES. 

We don’t think it would be reasonable to exclude this tenancy type from the proposed standards. While action to improve the energy performance of holiday lets won’t directly contribute to fuel poverty reduction it will contribute to CO₂ emissions reductions and as such there’s a compelling case for PRS MEES regulation to improve the energy performance of these properties.

Including short-term holiday lets in the regulations would also ensure that, if the tenure type of the property changes in the future, residents would have a reduced likelihood of living in fuel poverty as the property would be more affordable to heat.

We also highlight that excluding short term lets from the new standards would create discrepancies between short term lets and the rest of the PRS, which may motivate landlords to switch properties from private rent to holiday lets or to leave the sector. 

Yes, we agree with the proposed exemptions covering consent, the fabric requirements of the home and temporary exemptions.

However, we have concerns that tenants could make decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information and there’s also a risk that this exemption could be misused with some landlords potentially encouraging tenants to withhold consent in order to avoid undertaking improvement works. There’s also a risk that tenants may feel pressured to refuse consent due to fears (perceived or otherwise) of eviction or rent rises. 

In this context, we note that the draft regulations refer to landlords being exempt where tenant consent cannot be obtained, despite ‘reasonable’ efforts having been made. However, the term ‘reasonable efforts’ is ‘t clearly defined. Providing a clear definition would help prevent misuse of the exemption and support both landlords and tenants in navigating the process.

It would also be helpful if the Scottish Government provided guidance or criteria on what constitutes reasonable efforts to obtain consent. This could include encouraging tenants to seek independent advice and information about proposed works – for example though services like Home Energy Scotland – as well as offering flexibility around the timing of works, and documenting written communication attempts etc. While landlords may choose to share relevant information, recognising the importance of independent access to advice is key, given the diversity of landlord-tenant relationships. 

In addition, we recommend that the Scottish Government considers how best to communicate with tenants about the energy efficiency standards. This could include standardised, accessible information that individuals could access independently as well as resources that landlords may choose to share with tenants. Clear, consistent messaging would help ensure tenants are well-informed and able to make decisions confidently, reducing the risk of misunderstandings or reluctance to consent to improvement works. Alongside this, access to independent advice – for example through Home Energy Scotland – will be important to help tenants understand the benefits of the proposed works and feel supported through the process.

Yes, we agree that HEETSA should be available as an option to evidence potential negative impacts on the fabric of a property and to support an exemption.

As the consultation notes, this would offer a valuable safeguard for consumers, particularly in more complex buildings such as traditional or protected properties, tenements, or those in rural areas.

However, we note that HEETSA is likely to be a detailed assessment and may therefore involve a level of resource that could present a barrier for some landlords. We therefore suggest it be considered an allowable expense under the Home Energy Scotland landlord loan scheme and that any costs associated with undertaking a HEETSA should count towards the cost cap. Additionally, as this is a new type of assessment, there may be a shortage of qualified assessors in the early years. Action will be needed build capacity and ensure that sufficient numbers of trained assessors are available ahead of the PRS MEES regulations coming into force. 

No, we don’t agree that the cost cap level should be £10,000.

We think that consideration should be given to setting the cost cap for minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector at a higher level. This would allow for more comprehensive improvements to properties, helping to bring a greater number of households out of fuel poverty.

We note that a cap of £10,000 was originally proposed in the Scottish Government’s 2019 consultation on the draft Energy Efficiency (Domestic Private Rented Property) (Scotland) Regulations. Retaining this figure, without adjusting it for inflation, effectively lowers the level of investment the Scottish Government expects landlords to make. The UK Government’s own impact assessment for England and Wales estimated that a £10,000 cost cap in 2018 prices would be equivalent to approximately £12,300 in 2024 and £13,200 in 2028 (source: Improving the energy performance of privately rented homes: 2025 update – consultation document, p.24.).

A higher cap would also help to ensure that progress in Scotland doesn’t fall behind that of England and Wales, where a £15,000 cap has already been proposed.

We also recommend that measures that are funded via grants provided to tenants in fuel poverty aren’t included within the cost cap. For example, if a tenant was eligible for the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) or support via Warmer Homes Scotland (WHS), then the landlord should not be able to include any ECO/WHS funding within their contribution to the cost cap and would still be required to spend up to the cost cap on meeting the standard. This would maximise the improvements being installed in the private rented sector and support the policy’s stated aim of fuel poverty alleviation.

It’s also important that grant funding based on tenant characteristics, such as being in fuel poverty or on a low income, is not a substitute for private investment from landlords.

To ensure the continued effectiveness of the new standards, we also recommend that the cost cap increases in line with inflation. 

No, we don’t agree with the proposed 12-month lead in time period for works to contribute to the total cost cap.

We’re concerned that this approach may unintentionally discourage landlords from taking early steps to improve energy efficiency. If landlords are aware that regulations are forthcoming and understand what’s required, they should be encouraged to act sooner. However, restricting eligible expenditure to the final 12 months (i.e. to the 12 months before the regulations come into force) could lead landlords to delay planned improvements until they’re certain that the work will ‘count’ towards the cost cap.

This could result in a surge of activity at the start of the 12-month lead in period, putting unnecessary pressure on supply chains, installers and the wider support infrastructure and could lead to delays, increased costs and difficulty accessing necessary support services.

We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government consider a longer lead in period. A more extended timeframe would encourage earlier investment, support smoother delivery and help avoid unnecessary delays.

Yes, we agree that all actual costs, and the cost of an EPC should count towards the cost cap.

As the consultation notes, there may be circumstances where a landlord is required to meet regulatory requirements before their existing EPC has expired. In such cases, they’d need to commission a new EPC assessment earlier than would have otherwise been the case, incurring additional cost that would not otherwise have been necessary. Given this, it’s reasonable and appropriate for these costs to be counted towards the overall cost cap. 

Yes, we agree that landlords should receive Scottish Government support to make the required changes. It will also be important to provide support to tenants.

Support should include: 

Continued availability of Home Energy Scotland landlord loans 

A key element of this support should be the continued availability of the Home Energy Scotland landlord loans which currently provide finance for energy efficiency and low carbon heating systems. These loans can help landlords overcome the upfront cost barrier associated with retrofit measures.

While uptake of these loans has been relatively low to date, they remain an important mechanism for enabling investment in energy efficiency improvements. In addition, the Scottish Government may wish to consider extending loan repayment terms for Home Energy Scotland landlord loans. This would make monthly repayments more manageable and improve affordability – particularly for landlords operating in areas of Scotland where rental income and property values are lower.

It’s important that landlords are given clarity as soon as reasonably possible about the financial support that will/won’t be available when standards are introduced. 

Continued access to Home Energy Scotland advice for landlords and tenants 

The introduction of regulation is expected to significantly increase demand for energy efficiency advice among landlords and tenants. Many landlords operate on a small scale, with limited awareness of available support and the complexity of retrofit options – especially for hard-to-treat properties. To meet these needs, we on behalf of the Scottish Government, deliver tailored advice through Home Energy Scotland, offering a ‘one stop shop’ approach.

This includes detailed, property specific recommendation reports and a home visit service carried out by highly trained advisors who have in-depth knowledge of available measures and property types including hard to treat. This service has proven effective, with 83% of supported landlords implementing or planning improvements.

Tenants also benefit from a wide range of advice and support from Home Energy Scotland, including support to help them understand their eligibility for fuel poverty schemes such as Warmer Homes Scotland and ECO and support with energy bills, including referring clients for benefit checks, for tariff checks/access to Warm Homes Discount, for support to switch supplier, etc. 

As regulation is introduced – and even in the lead up to final decisions – demand for advice services is expected to grow. There’s a strong case for building on Home Energy Scotland’s existing expertise and expanding its capacity to ensure landlords and tenants continue to receive high-quality support. Additional resources may be needed to meet this rising demand.

Awareness raising

There will also be a need to raise awareness of the standards among landlords to ensure successful implementation of the standards. Recent research by Citizens Advice found that only 1 in 5 landlords in England and Wales could correctly identify the current minimum energy efficiency standards. This highlights the risk that, without targeted communication, landlords in Scotland may also lack understanding of what will be required of them. 

To address this, the Scottish Government should develop a comprehensive awareness campaign ahead of the standards coming into effect. This campaign should clearly explain the new requirements and timelines, promote available advice and financial support. Ideally it should also include a strong call to action, directing landlords and tenants to Home Energy Scotland for tailored advice.

It will be particularly important to tailor messaging to effectively reach smaller landlords, who often lack the time, resources or professional networks to fully understand the standards. Evidence from England and Wales shows that single property landlords are significantly less aware of the standards and less likely to have made upgrades – only 31% had made upgrades to their property in the last five years compared to 63% of landlords with 5 or more properties. 

To maximise engagement, communications should be positive and supportive, aiming to dispel common myths and misconceptions. Messaging should emphasise the benefits of early compliance and encourage landlords to exceed minimum standards where possible. Framing that standards as opportunity – to improve property quality, reduce tenant energy bills and contribute to climate goals rather than a regulatory burden will be important.

Yes, we agree that support should be in the form of a loan.

However other support will also be required – please see our response to question 12.

Yes, we agree that local authorities should be responsible for monitoring and compliance of these regulations.

We note that, despite current standards for the PRS requiring rental properties to have an EPC E rating, in 2023, 2.7% of the PRS in England and Wales had an EPC rating below E. This equates to more than 140,000 homes. This suggests that, even where standards are in place, effective enforcement can be challenging without sufficient support.

To enable local authorities in Scotland to build the capacity and skills needed to undertake this new function effectively, it will be important that they’re adequately resourced to do so. In this context, the Scottish Government may be interested in the recommendations set out in E3G’s recent report on enforcing standards within the PRS, which, while focussed on England and Wales, offer insights that could be relevant in the Scottish context.

We also support the Scottish Government’s intention to use evidence gathered by local authorities through their monitoring and enforcement duties to help inform future policy development and help identify barriers. In this context, we’d like to point out that if they’re to do this, there needs to be a clear and consistent mechanism for capturing and sharing this feedback with government.

In addition, we believe it will be important to establish standardised processes and national databases wherever possible. This would reduce the burden on individual local authorities by avoiding the need to develop systems from scratch and would support a consistent approach across Scotland’s 32 local authorities. It would also make the system easier to navigate for landlords with properties in multiple areas, ensuring they’re not faced with different requirements in different parts of the country.

Yes, we agree with the proposed level of financial penalties to support compliance with the regulations.

We agree that penalties should be set at relatively low levels in the early stages of implementation. However, it will be important that the Scottish Government retains flexibility to increase them over time – both to reflect inflation and to respond to low levels of compliance, if necessary. Penalties should ultimately be set at a level that makes it financially preferable for landlords to meet the standard, rather than pay the fine.

We note the proposed structure of the financial penalties, which vary depending on the duration of non-compliance at the time the penalty notice is served. However, it’s unclear what happens after an initial penalty is issued and paid. For example, if a landlord receives a £600 fine for being in breach for less than six months, but remains non-compliant beyond that point, will further penalties be issued – and if so, when? It’s not currently clear when follow-up action by local authorities would be expected, or how ongoing breaches would be handled.

Clarity will be needed on what follow-up action is expected from local authorities after an initial penalty is issued. Without this, landlords may not fully understand the consequences of continued non-compliance and local authorities may be unsure when and how to take further enforcement action. A consistent approach across Scotland will be important to ensure fairness, transparency and confidence in the system – particularly for landlords with properties in multiple areas.

Yes.