What Europe’s retrofit schemes can teach the UK about landlord confidence

Introduction

The proposed requirements for privately rented homes to reach EPC C by 2030, alongside the wider Warm Homes Plan, mean energy efficiency is becoming a more important part of landlords’ long-term property management and investment planning.

But setting higher standards is only one part of the challenge. If landlords are expected to make significant improvements to the homes they let, they need support schemes that are stable, accessible, and trusted.

Past experience in the UK has shown that even well-intentioned schemes can struggle where rules change frequently, application processes are unclear, installer capacity is limited or accountability is fragmented.

A new report from Alliance Manchester Business School (AMBS), produced in partnership with the NRLA, compares a range of European energy efficiency incentive schemes in the UK, Ireland, France, and Italy. Rather than identifying a single “best” model, the report examines how the merits and flaws of different approaches affect landlord participation and influence delivery quality.

Report analysis approach

The analysis focuses on four themes that are particularly important for landlords:

• Institutional arrangements - how schemes are organised, funded, and overseen
• Financial incentives - how much support is available, when it is paid and who bears upfront costs
• Supply chain development - installer capacity, accreditation, and quality assurance
• Regulation - how schemes interact with minimum energy efficiency standards and landlord obligations

The different approaches of each scheme matter because they have a direct impact on landlords’ experience and, as a result, uptake. Whether landlords have confidence in a scheme depends on practical questions such as:

• How easy is it to apply? 
• Who pays upfront?
• Can I choose the installer?
• Who is responsible if work is poor?
• Will the rules still be in place by the time I am ready to invest?

If landlords cannot answer these questions with confidence, even generous support may fail to drive participation.

Centrally Administered Schemes

Centrally administered schemes can give landlords clearer rules and more consistent oversight. Ireland’s approach, coordinated through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, shows the value of a national body overseeing grant administration, installer registration, and quality assurance. It's One Stop Shop model is particularly relevant because it brings assessment, delivery, and compliance into a single pathway, reducing the need for landlords to manage different parts of the process themselves.

However, centralisation does not automatically mean simplicity. France’s MaPrimeRénov’ shows that national schemes can still be difficult to navigate where multiple grants, eligibility rules and certification requirements overlap.

Local delivery

Local delivery, as seen through the Warm Homes: Local Grant, offers a different set of strengths and weaknesses. It can allow support to reflect local housing conditions and local need. However, it risks uneven access if councils differ in capacity, priorities, or delivery arrangements. This is particularly relevant for landlords with properties across more than one local authority area.

Supplier-led obligation

Supplier-led obligation schemes mean energy companies are legally required to deliver energy efficiency improvements and typically work through networks of installers and intermediaries.

Schemes such as ECO4 in the UK and Certificats d’Économie d’Énergie in France can deliver activity at scale and may offer improvements at low or no direct cost where eligibility criteria are met. But they can also create uncertainty around control and accountability. Landlords may have limited choice over contractors, timing, or the specification of works. Where delivery is conducted through chains of suppliers, intermediaries, and subcontractors, it can be difficult to know who is responsible if problems emerge later.

Tax-based incentives

Italy’s experience highlights both the potential and risks of tax-based incentives. Schemes such as Ecobonus and Superbonus helped stimulate retrofit activity and made larger upgrades more financially attractive. However, the Superbonus also exposed the risks of very generous support, including cost inflation, fraud, and pressure on public finances. Tax-based incentives may also be less accessible to smaller landlords or those with limited taxable income.

Lessons for UK policy

Schemes must be stable and predictable

Landlords are making long-term investment decisions, often across properties with various levels of need and different improvement costs. Short-lived or frequently revised schemes will delay action and can encourage a “wait and see” approach, particularly where future regulatory requirements are uncertain. Clear communication and policy stability are therefore essential.

Application and delivery should be simple

Landlords need a clear, easy-to-follow process. They should be able to understand eligibility, evidence requirements, installer rules, tenant consent requirements, and any post-installation obligations without navigating multiple overlapping systems.

Quality assessments and assurance must be built in

Accreditation is important, but it is not enough on its own. Landlords and tenants also need confidence that work will be inspected, standards enforced and clear routes to redress where things go wrong.

Regulation and incentives must work together

Timelines for meeting energy efficiency standards should be matched by practical support, effective enforcement, and realistic routes to compliance. Without accessible support, regulation risks being seen as punitive rather than enabling improvement.

Supply-chain capacity

Well-funded schemes will still fall short if there are not enough trained installers, inspectors, and retrofit professionals to deliver the work. Investment in training, accreditation and wider supply-chain capacity should therefore be treated as a central part of scheme design.

What does this mean for policy-makers?

The findings suggest that the UK should not replicate any single model wholesale. Instead, future policy should be guided by the strongest features of different schemes: the consistency of centralised schemes, the flexibility of local delivery, the scale of supplier obligation models and the reach of financial incentives.

While financial support is important, particularly for upfront costs, funding alone is not sufficient. Delivery also depends on capacity, including a skilled workforce, installers, and supply chains. 

Policy should also reflect the diversity of the landlord market. Engagement should extend beyond owner-occupiers to include landlords with multiple properties, who are key to delivery at scale. Ensuring schemes work for both smaller and larger landlords will improve overall effectiveness. 

The lesson from Europe is that retrofit schemes succeed or fail not only because of how much funding they offer, but because of how well they reflect the practical decisions landlords must make.