I can't help wondering if the Green Deal is intended to be a failure - given all the soft launches and other problems.
It was always going to be a hard sell - the government has been beating the drum that the austerity measures were the fault of careless lending and excessive borrowing. People are generally trying to pay off their debts rather than taking on new ones. Despite the fancy packaging the Green Deal is basically a long term loan, at a time when people are trying to reduce their debts.
Paying back via energy bills is just window dressing, adding additional bureaucracy and middle men who want their cut. The "golden rule" is just a little too much like previous "too good to be true" financial schemes, at a time when endowment, PPI, and other mis-selling schemes have reduced trust in such financial instruments to an all time low.
Linking the load to the house rather than the individual may have seemed at first glance like a good idea for those not certain whether they would stay in the house long enough to see the payback. However, this just adds to the concerns - would you be able to sell a house with loans attached? In practice, the seller would either need to pay of the loan earlier, or the seller might insist on paying a reduced price to take into account the outstanding loan. Either way, the seller ends no better off then if the loan was a personal one. If anything it pushes up the cost of buying and selling houses (yet another task for the surveyor) at a time when the housing market is in an all time slump!
And then despite all that, the loan rates turn out to be worse than existing commercial loans. Anyone wishing to undertake such energy measures would be far better off in extending their mortgage - both in terms of the interest rate, and early repayment charges.
Or have I missed something?
Matthew