Banks are sticking to green pledges that will see thousands turned down for mortgages if they don’t spend a small fortune making their homes more energy efficient, despite Rishi Sunak saying the public should not be burdened with the cost of Net Zero. The Telegraph has more.
Last month Mr. Sunak removed targets for mortgage lenders that would have forced them to ensure the properties on their loan books have Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings of C or better by 2030. He said he wanted to “ease the burden” of Net Zero on families and working people.
EPC rating rules were brought into law in 2018 and required all privately rented properties in England to be above a certain standard of energy efficiency.
On top of this, the Government proposed introducing voluntary targets for mortgage lenders to ensure properties on their loan books have ratings of C or better by the end of the decade.
But, despite Mr. Sunak scrapping or pushing back a string of Net Zero requirements, including the looming rules for landlords, large lenders including Nationwide Building Society and NatWest are still sticking to pledges to make 50% of their mortgage customers’ homes EPC rating C or more by 2030.
It means mortgage customers whose homes do not meet the standard face spending thousands on upgrades such as insulation, double glazing and heat pumps.
According to the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities English Housing Survey, published last year, 18% of private rental properties would require more than £10,000 to bring up their homes to an EPC rating of C. Those who do not meet these standards, face being turned down for loans.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
£££s
Exactly; and € & $ into the future. It’s a long term investment in the trade, quite likely. Not only that, were the recorded deaths caused by Covid-19, or “with” it, in tandem with other illnesses?
Indeed- a new business model of rapid development and rollout based on the same dodgy basic platform
I also think we cannot trust any statistic on “Covid deaths”
Was the bigger motivation not something to do with vaccine passes, digital ID and CBDCs – ie a step on the road towards a social credit system and the ability to control people’s travel, expenditure and behaviour? And possibly also getting universal acceptance of the mRNA platform, maybe with a view to depopulation and transhumanism agendas? Or maybe trying to eliminate control groups for the vaccines by minimising the number of people unvaccinated?
Probably played a part
Different groups with varied agendas all had something to gain
And perhaps the avoidance of traditional assessment methods for brand new drugs. Originally on the basis that we were in an Emergency (Emergency Use Authorization), along with “vaccines” having an easier ride than anything else. Then, when minor alterations were developed on a new “platform” they might make a better profit on each occasion when a new demand occurs.
I wonder how many of those 162 had multiple comorbidities? My guess would be 162.
What’s the definition of a comorbidity? If it is a compromised immune system, then vaccination will soon become a comorbidity.
does anyone have an article i could share about the danger of the ‘vaccine’ for those with autoimmune diseases ? no one will listen to me and they are going downhill with every shot . thank you.
The key point here is the with COVID. This means it uses the usual definition of COVID death, someone died within X days of having a positive test result. This probably includes suicides, car accidents, mobsters discussing business issues with rivals and people getting mauled by lions.
Why, you ask? Altogether now…. Because-because-because-because-becaaaaaaause…. Because of the wonderful profits it makes!
Go ask the man behind the curtain.
Example- a man mending his roof, slips and falls and breaks his neck! It was found he had tested positive for covid a week ago, so, Death caused by covid!
‘Vaccine’ from drowning in a swimming pool, ‘vaccine’ from dying in a road traffic accident, ‘vaccine’ from being killed by an accidental injury… I can see huge business opportunity. Sheeple will unquestionably follow ‘the science’ unable to see the BS as proven by the recent events.
And the best ‘vaccine’ of all , is the ultimate protection – simply obey every single instruction uttered by Your Government and you will be safe, happy and healthy 4eva
Yes, the Government, in the famous words of Assange, exists to move public money into the private hands.
It is interesting to compare these figures with ONS figures for England & Wales.
We are obliged to use the ‘death with covid’ category – within 28 days of a positive PCR test. These include deaths with pre-existing conditions (e.g. heart failure) and co-morbidities (e.g. fatal accident)
The figures corresponding to Italy’s 162/72,422 (0.2%) are 436/80,830 (0.5%).
The ONS figures have been publicly available since January 2022!
Does this mean we carried out far more tests than Italy meaning that over twice the number of people dying from something else had a positive test result prior to their death?
I don’t know – but that could be an answer. After all, without PCR tests, what would have evidenced a ‘pandemic’?
I have written before that a simple comparison of 2020 all-cause mortality charts against earlier years shows significant increases in deaths around March/April 2020 in certain European countries (e.g. France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, UK), whereas in others there was no such increase at all (e.g. Austria, Germany, Romania, Slovenia).
I therefore conclude there was neither a global pandemic at the time, nor was a novel, deadly disease circulating in Europe: a novel, deadly disease would, after all, cause excess deaths in all neighbouring countries.
I can only assume that the excess deaths in those countries with increased mortality were purely iatrogenic, caused by the strict adhesion to WHO-prescribed treatments, which were not so strictly adhered to in other countries. Or does someone have a better explanation for the discrepancies between neighbouring countries?
I quote again Denis Rancourt (https://denisrancourt.ca/), whose team performed in-depth analyses of all-cause mortality data spanning many countries of the world:
Why? Italy was the control country in the west in order for the Western RPTB to see how much control they could exert through fear. Absolutely nothing to do with a deadly pathogen at all.
History shows 20% of us can think critically but sadly the rest can be controlled, “nudged” is I believe the new term, for simply being lied to. Bravo to those controlling the MSM.
Control of every human being on the planet is what they’re after, because they’ve known for 20 years that the capitalist/USA/banking system is finished – hence we have Climate/wokeism/deadly new virus etc.
Putin knows this full well – and China is pissing itself laughing at us all.
Just as an aside, read up on the real reasons WW 2 began – and it ain’t Germany invading Poland…
I do not agree that it reasonable for national statistics to take so long to publish. Data should be monitored continuously and it should normally be right in the first place.
private businesses have to produce accurate date promptly for tge tax man, shareholders and Companies House. Financial services businesses also have to file quarterly data to FCA and PRU.
as usual the public sector is not on top of the roles they are generously paid to do.
Why the pic of the motorbike helmet? As a rider I find that suggestive, distracting and, dare I, offensive.