-
checking involve punching some holes
I mean yeah they probably didn't fancy this, which is fair enough. But you would have thought the reporting system could accommodate a rating of 'undetermined' which is accurate. If we (all people, everywhere) are to improve the energy efficiency of our houses we have to do better than assuming.
I'm biased perhaps because I've seen some totally misleading or outright wrong stuff on EPCs or surveys. In my opinion there is plenty of scope for giving a range of possibilities for things not surveyed, rather than just saying 'assume insulated, therefore assume good'.
You may be right that the age, type etc gives further clues; to be honest I'm just ranting because I'm grumpy, but in general I think I've got a point.
Edit: wrote the above without noticing that you're the one looking at the house. Good luck; let us know what the outcome is!
Cupcakes-
Totally, it seems like a very vague assessment of building performance and doesn't really tell anyone anything very useful. It's easy to use as a yardstick when you can pretty much have a guess at what it's telling you anyway, but pretty much useless in scenarios like above, which will presumably become more common as people try and upgrade/retro-fit older homes.
Polygon
Wouldn't checking involve punching some holes in walls? I assume the owners weren't up for that. Maybe assumed based on the age of the build, or maybe just a wild guess.
@hazzelfrazzel yeah that's what I figured, although you'd think this would average out to, err... average at least. Will have to visit to work out what's going on exactly.