Royal estates rent out homes that fail to meet legal energy efficiency standards
Developed over time first seen 3 hours ago
More than 100 homes on estates inherited by King Charles and Prince William have energy efficiency ratings below the legal minimum for most rented properties, according to a Guardian analysis. The findings may be politically and reputationally awkward for the royals, who promote environmental causes, and raise concerns about tenants living in cold, poorly insulated homes.
Around one in five sampled lets on the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and the Sandringham estate had EPC ratings of F or G, despite rules generally requiring at least an E rating since 2020. Many lacked registered exemptions, although some farm and pre-2008 tenancies fall outside the rules; residents reportedly faced mould, draughts, no central heating and reliance on coal fires or costly electric heaters. The duchies have paid more than £400m to the King and his family since 2018, while landlords who breach the standards can face fines of up to £5,000.
- Royal estates reportedly rent over 100 substandard energy-efficient homes.
- Some tenants face mould, cold and expensive heating.
- Regulatory exemptions leave certain older and farm tenancies uncovered.
New here? Start with this
Energy performance certificates, or EPCs, rate how efficient a home is from A to G, with A being the best. In England and Wales, most privately rented homes must meet at least an E rating, unless their landlord has a valid exemption.
King Charles’s Duchy of Lancaster and Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall are large inherited estates that own land, farms, businesses and residential property. The duchies generate income for their holders and are managed separately from the public funding of the monarchy.
Poorly insulated homes can be harder and more expensive to heat, particularly during colder months. Questions about the standards of homes on the estates raise issues about landlords’ legal duties, tenant living conditions and how exemptions to energy-efficiency rules are used.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that the royal estates should meet, and ideally exceed, the same energy-efficiency standards expected of other landlords. Letting homes with F or G EPC ratings can leave tenants facing high bills, cold conditions and avoidable emissions, while the estates’ resources and public prominence create a particular responsibility to act quickly. They contend that exemptions or delays may be legally available in some cases, but should not become a substitute for serious investment in tenants’ homes.
The case against
The estates may argue that upgrading older and historically significant properties is often technically complex, expensive and constrained by planning or heritage rules. Some homes may qualify for lawful exemptions where improvements are impractical, disproportionate in cost or risk damaging a building’s character, and owners may need time to plan works properly rather than pursue unsuitable alterations. On this view, the appropriate test is whether the estates are complying with applicable rules and making credible, tenant-conscious progress on upgrades, not whether every difficult property can immediately achieve a modern EPC rating.
More coverage