Eleri31 is in her early thirties, and lives with her partner, Carl, in a large, well-serviced village where two estuaries meet. Having grown up on a farm three miles away, Eleri has lived in the locality for most of her life, and along with Carl, runs her own catering business situated some 10 miles away. Seven years ago, the couple decided to invest in a terraced house in order boost their income by letting it out to tenants. However, following an unexpected turn of events three years later, Eleri and Carl decided to move in to the house themselves, and have been living there ever since. At the time of our first interview, the couple were looking to sell their house and were “saving up for a deposit” in order to purchase a larger property nearer to their workplace. Much of Eleri’s account is characterised by a need to make financial savings, which she achieves by making small changes to the way that she consumes energy in her everyday life. In order to understand how Eleri uses energy however, we must first look to her past, and more specifically, to the decisions that she made in the earlier stages of her residential trajectory.
Eleri’s narrative began with her transition to homeownership. Then in her mid-twenties, Eleri felt that “it was time” to purchase her own house, not for herself to live in, but for the specific purpose of renting the property to prospective tenants. At the time of her purchase, Eleri was in a stable relationship, enjoyed secure employment and could afford the prices of the local housing market; factors which could have contributed to it being the ‘right time’ for her to invest in bricks and mortar. However, according to McKee (2012) our ‘choices are inevitably constrained’ (p. 859), not only by individual agency but by structural dimensions, such as housing policies, that have profoundly shaped preferences for property ownership in industrial and post-industrial economies, including that of Britain. The British preference for homeownership is evident in Eleri’s account as it seems to represent the next logical step in her residential trajectory, perhaps serving as a symbolic marker of her successful transition to adulthood (see Calvert, 2010). Whilst
31
Eleri had already flown the nest, the traditional signifier of independence according to Jones (1995), her living arrangements did not offer the same degree of long-term security that is associated with homeownership (see McKee, 2012). Buying-to-let could thus represent a sound financial investment, providing Eleri with security and stability whilst allowing her to retain a degree of flexibility to pursue other opportunities, such as travelling the world (see Arnett, 2004).
Reflecting on her property purchase, Eleri noted that the local housing market played a decisive role in her decision making process;
Erin What made you buy this house then?
Eleri You know what (…) the price was definitely one thing. We looked at a few houses close to where I was living at the time (…) the prices are a bit higher in the town than they are in the village (…) and some of the other houses we saw in the village needed so much work. We wanted something that only needed a quick lick of paint before letting it out straight away, and this was the best out of a bad bunch really. We didn’t buy this house with the intention of living in it you see […]
Here, Eleri explains that her choices were constrained by many factors, such as her financial resources, the local housing market, and her desire to let the property out as soon as possible. As illustrated in the above extract, Eleri’s decision making was predominantly guided by an economic concern. Given her role as a buy-to-let landlord, the interplay between financial investment and returns feature strongly throughout Eleri’s narrative, becoming particularly evident as she discusses preparing the property for the rental market.
Whilst a general upgrade with minimal financial investment was her primary concern, many of the decisions made regarding improvements and the purchase of appliances had secondary, energy saving, benefits. For instance, the installation of double-glazing and loft insulation were two of the most significant improvements made to the property;
improvements which Eleri recognised as having direct benefits in terms of energy efficiency. She demonstrated this awareness by mentioning the property’s Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which, according to the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), any individual that is building, selling or leasing a property is required to have. Whilst Eleri stresses that the property’s energy rating is “between a B
and a C, which is quite energy efficient”, she also notes that according to the EPC, more could be done;
Eleri They said that we could put extra insulation or something underneath the floor, ‘cause the house is so old the tiles are directly on the soil so there isn’t anything- you know, to keep the heat in (…) But that was going to cost something like four thousand pounds, and it would only save ninety quid a year or something ridiculous like that […]
Eleri is clearly reluctant to invest more money to improve the energy efficiency of the property, and alludes to a belief that the current energy rating is sufficient. It seems that the substantial financial cost of installation renders floor insulation a ‘bad investment’, especially given the limited financial returns that it is likely to provide, even though, as a landlord, she would not be the one that would be benefitting from it. The dual notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ investments continue as Eleri discusses her choices regarding the purchase of appliances for her rental property.
Eleri When we had done the house up and were ready to rent it out we bought a fridge-freezer, a washing machine and a cooker -brand new- and we paid extra to get a five year warranty on all of them.
We haven’t had any issues at all with the fridge-freezer -touch wood- in these last five years, so it’s still like new (…) The tenants dropped a tin of paint on the halogen cooktop -smashed it- but her house insurance paid for that, so that’s brand new (…) And the washing machine -[sigh]- we’ve had a lot of trouble with it, but we’ve got two months left on the warranty I think, so if anything else goes wrong in the next two months, then I just have to call the repairman and he fixes it for free, but I won’t be renewing the warranty again. I think I’ll have to buy a new one.
Erin When you were buying them did you look at their energy rating at all?
Eleri Not really (…) It was the price that I was concerned with at the time […] Yeah (…) because I wasn’t going to be the one using them anyway -tenants were ‘gonna be the ones using them, and that’s what I was able to afford at the time […]
The above extract clearly demonstrates that Eleri’s responsibilities as a private landlord clearly shaped her purchasing decisions. Eleri seems to demonstrate a concern for the maintenance and durability of the appliances, preferring to repair them rather than purchasing new ones as she “resent[s] going out to buy more”. Here, the purchase of the
experienced with the washing machine. Additionally, Eleri’s final comment regarding the intended use of appliances, offers a further insight into her decision-making process, as she alludes that her purchasing decisions might have been different had she been buying the appliances for herself. Such an attitude is illustrative of the ‘split incentive dilemma’
(Charlier, 2014), which in this case may be partly due to the fact that Eleri’s responsibilities did not extend to paying the property’s energy bill, thus making her less likely to be concerned about the efficiency of the appliances (see Davis, 2010). However, there are risks involved for the landlord when the responsibilities for paying the energy bills fall upon the tenants, as illustrated in the extract below.
Eleri We put a prepayment meter in when we renovated the house, so you pay for your gas and electricity in “Spar” and you put your key into the meter to use it (…) Scottish Power installed it for free, so that tenants wouldn’t run up any debts […]
It seems that Eleri believes that the installation of a prepayment meter minimises the risk of tenants defaulting on their energy bills, illustrating a longstanding concern for many private landlords, given that a tenant’s debt would be transferred to them upon the failure to pay. Despite understanding that “it’s obviously more expensive to buy gas and electricity this way”, it seems that Eleri believes that prepayment tariffs are useful, as they allow tenants to manage their energy budgets more effectively. Indeed, many of the participants that had previous experience of using prepayment tariffs also shared this discourse of consumer empowerment, stating that prepayment meters gave them a greater sense of control over their finances. However, installing these meters inevitably constrains tenants’ choice of tariff, which is suggestive of wider discourses linking low-income consumers with an inability budget appropriately (see Colton, 2001).
Thus far we have seen that Eleri’s decisions regarding the overall energy efficiency of her rental property were guided by the principles of maintaining the property to a good standard in order to attract tenants and generate income. However, the choices made during this time would later come to shape Eleri’s personal energy use, as she takes an unexpected turn in her residential trajectory.
Having secured their first tenant in 2008, Eleri and Carl gave up their jobs in order to travel the world, with their rental property being their only source of income. Upon their return, the couple set up their current business and moved into a “very cold” static
caravan on the Eleri’s family farm, in order to “save some money” to place a deposit on her first home together. This initial short-term arrangement, however, extended into a two year stay before the couple came to the conclusion that they “couldn’t live in a caravan any more”, culminating in their decision not to renew their tenants’ contract so that they could move into Eleri’s rental property. This move transformed the property from being a secure investment that provided a stable source of income into the couple’s first foothold on the property ladder, serving to propel them towards a better house. Eleri and Carl now found themselves living in a property that had originally been intended for the rental market, and were subject to the same (infra)structures that they had put in place for their tenants. Unlike their past tenants however, the couple could invest to change the infrastructures of the house to suit their needs, such as removing the prepayment meters in favour of less expensive methods of payment. Despite her preference for monthly billing however, Eleri had retained the property’s prepayment meter;
Eleri Well, if I wasn’t moving house and if I didn’t have to pay -I don’t know how much it costs to change back to a quarterly tariff mind- then I would change back because I know it’s cheaper.
It seems that the couple’s desire to move on to a more suitable home had made Eleri reluctant to further invest in the property, even if such an investment could reduce their monthly outgoings on energy bills. For example, whilst installing the prepayment meter was free of charge, Eleri was unsure whether or not its removal would incur a cost, which she evidently did not deem worth spending. Instead, the prepayment meter played a key role in changing Eleri’s habitual routines.
Eleri When we’d just moved in I took a look at [the meter] on the first morning before going for a shower, and when I checked again afterwards I saw that the shower had cost me 20p. I was like “oh my God!”, I have to cut down the time I spend in the shower you know. So I used to wash my hair every morning, but now I wash my hair every three days maybe -but I’ll still have a quick shower every day- so on the days when I do wash my hair it will obviously cost me 20p […]
Here we can see how that Eleri used the prepayment meter to monitor the cost of taking a daily shower in particular, which led her to adopt strategies to minimise her consumption by making small changes such as limiting the time she spent in the shower and washing her hair every third day. What is important to note however, is that rather
above extract demonstrates the non-negotiability of showering as an everyday practice, despite the cost (see Strengers, 2009); indeed, Eleri did not consider changing the frequency of showering from a daily event to one that occurs every other day, as she believed that doing so “sounds ming”32. As such, whilst monitoring the cost of showering did result in some changes to her routine practice, it did not challenge Eleri’s understanding of what it means to be clean (Strengers, 2008). Moreover, Eleri’s motivation to make financial savings was not an issue of affordability, rather, it was directly related to the plans that she and Carl had for the future. From Eleri’s narrative then, it is possible to see how consumption practices in the present are bound up with decisions made in the past and aspirations for the future.