Freddie Cuddy, founder of EPC provider Move-Nest, explains why issues related to the certificate arise late in the transaction process – and how to avoid them.
Conveyancers do not need reminding what an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) is, nor that one is required for the sale or letting of a property. The legal position is clear, well-understood, and long-established. And yet, EPC-related issues continue to surface surprisingly late in otherwise well-managed transactions – often at the point conveyancers are already dealing with an expanding set of regulatory, reporting and compliance pressures.
The problem is not a lack of knowledge, but a recurring breakdown in timing, ownership and visibility at the very start of a transaction.
Responsibility is clear – but friction still travels downstream
To be clear from the outset: responsibility for providing a valid EPC sits with the homeowner or landlord. In practice, estate agents are typically the first point of instruction and the natural place where EPCs are commissioned. Conveyancers should not be expected to be responsible for arranging EPCs.
However, when an EPC is missing, expired, incorrectly assumed to be valid or commissioned late, it is often conveyancers who end up managing the consequences. This is not a question of fault, but of how small process gaps upstream translate into disproportionate disruption later in the transaction lifecycle.
Where EPCs still cause late-stage disruption
Across live transactions, several EPC-related patterns continue to emerge – not because professionals are unaware of the rules, but because EPCs are often treated as a background task rather than a gating item.
Common examples include EPCs commissioned after draft contracts are issued, creating avoidable pauses while certificates are arranged and lodged; sellers assuming an existing EPC remains valid, only for expiry to be identified mid-transaction; access or lodgement issues following instruction, with no single party clearly owning follow-up; properties that have been materially altered since the last EPC, creating uncertainty over whether a new assessment is required.
Individually, these are small issues. Collectively, they create friction that conveyancers are left to absorb, often late in the process.
Why this matters more now than it used to
EPCs may feel routine, but their relevance within transactions has grown.
Buyers, lenders, and insurers are paying closer attention to energy efficiency. Regulatory scrutiny continues to increase and future rreform remains a live topic. All of this means EPCs are no longer a box-ticking exercise that can safely sit in the background until exchange approaches.
When EPC questions surface late, they rarely exist in isolation. They tend to coincide with other pressure points such as searches, mortgage conditions and leasehold queries, compounding delay and increasing the volume of back-and-forth conveyancers must manage.
This is a process issue, not a responsibility issue
It is important not to frame this as an attempt to shift responsibility onto conveyancers. The issue is not who is responsible, but when certainty is created.
Where EPC status is confirmed clearly at instruction stage – valid, expired, commissioned, or requiring reassessment – downstream disruption reduces significantly. Where it is not, even well-run transactions can become noisy.
Earlier visibility benefits everyone: conveyancers face fewer last-minute interruptions, agents avoid stalled listings or awkward mid-marketing pauses, sellers are less likely to encounter unexpected delays, and buyers gain earlier clarity.
In short, transaction flow improves without adding new obligations to already stretched professionals.
Small upstream checks, disproportionate downstream benefits
The most effective improvements tend to be procedural rather than legal. For example, treating EPC status as a confirmed instruction-stage item rather than an assumption, verifying expiry dates instead of confirming they exist, flagging material property changes early, and ensuring someone owns follow-up where access or lodgement is delayed.
None of these add regulatory burden. They simply reduce uncertainty before it travels downstream.
Some conveyancers are already informally building these checks into their early file reviews – not because it is their responsibility, but because experience shows where friction is most likely to arise.
Reducing noise, not adding blame
Conveyancers are already dealing with increasing regulatory demands, expanding reporting requirements and greater scrutiny across every aspect of a transaction. EPCs should not become another source of avoidable noise.
Handled early, they are unremarkable. Handled late, they disproportionately disrupt momentum.
The objective is not to re-litigate responsibility, but to recognise where small process gaps continue to create avoidable friction – and how earlier clarity upstream can materially improve transaction flow for everyone involved.
About the author
Freddie Cuddy is the founder and director of Move-Nest, a UK-wide EPC service working with estate agents, conveyancers, landlords and homeowners across England, Wales and Scotland. Through coordinating EPCs across live property transactions each day, he focuses on improving instruction-stage visibility and reducing avoidable delays linked to missing, expired or late-commissioned certificates.
