Royal estates rent substandard homes despite energy efficiency laws

King Charles and Prince William have cultivated public identities as environmental stewards, yet an investigation into their inherited estates reveals a stark contradiction: more than one hundred homes across their properties fail to meet the legal minimum energy efficiency standards that have been mandatory for landlords since 2020.

The Guardian examined Energy Performance Certificate ratings for domestic properties on the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the Sandringham estate. The findings are stark. Of roughly 700 properties analyzed across the three estates, approximately one in five—143 properties in total—carry EPC ratings of F or G, the lowest possible scores. Under regulations introduced in 2020, landlords must ensure properties meet at least an E rating or demonstrate a formal exemption. Landlords who fail to comply and continue renting can face fines up to £5,000 per property. Yet across the royal estates, fewer than one in twelve of the substandard properties had registered exemptions.

The human reality behind these numbers is what makes the story sharp. Journalists visited several of the worst-rated properties and found conditions that seemed lifted from another era: black mould creeping across walls, single-glazed windows rattling in their frames, elderly tenants huddled around coal fires because central heating either did not exist or was too expensive to run. One man in his nineties lived for more than sixty years in a G-rated cottage before it was sold; the new owner described the conditions as so poor she would not allow a dog to stay there. A parish councillor in Cheshire described elderly duchy tenants as terrified to complain about repairs because they feared rent increases—a dynamic that silences the very people most vulnerable to the health hazards of poor housing.

The estates have exploited gaps in the regulations to sidestep compliance. Farmhouses on the two duchies, depending on the type of agricultural tenancy, fall outside the regulations entirely. Properties with tenancies that began before October 2008 are not covered by the rules. In these older tenancies, many occupied by elderly and vulnerable people, residents rely on unhealthy coal fires or expensive electric heaters, with some living without central heating at all. When the Guardian spoke to one duchy farmer whose home received one of the lowest possible EPC scores, he described the absurdity: "When they came to do the EPC, the man said we were one of the worst he had ever done. They would need to spend a lot of money on this place but the duchy told us we are exempt."

The financial picture adds another layer of tension. The Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall are exempt from most business taxes, allowing them to maximize profits. Since 2018—the year the energy efficiency regulations came into force—these two estates alone have paid out more than £400 million to the king and his family. The Sandringham estate, purchased by Queen Victoria in 1862 and spanning 8,000 hectares in Norfolk, generates unknown sums. Yet investment in bringing substandard properties up to code appears minimal relative to these payouts. The Duchy of Lancaster reported spending £3 million on residential repairs and upgrades over the past year, a figure that sounds substantial until set against the scale of the problem and the wealth flowing out of the estates.

The estates have offered defenses. The Duchy of Lancaster stated it places "great importance" on being a responsible landlord and has invested significantly in improvements, noting that historic buildings present particular challenges. The Duchy of Cornwall announced a £500 million investment in local communities and an additional £50 million for property improvements, though it clarified that only six of 150 new "energy-efficient homes" delivered in the past year were private rentals; most were sold. Sandringham said its properties are "fully compliant with MEES regulations" and that exemptions are necessary only on a small number of properties.

Yet the investigation found evidence that contradicts these assurances. One Duchy of Cornwall tenant moved into her property after the regulations came into force, but no EPC was conducted at the time of her tenancy—a potential violation. Her property later received an F rating with no registered exemption. She described the cold, the expensive oil heating she and her pensioner husband avoid using, the reliance on log burners, and the rising rent. Fuel Poverty Action, a pressure group focused on housing hardship, called the conditions in some properties "Dickensian" and accused the royals of "putting profits above the health and welfare of their tenants."

The tension at the heart of this story is not merely regulatory or financial. It is about the gap between the public image these estates and their owners have cultivated—environmental advocates, responsible stewards—and the lived experience of people living in their properties. Mould and damp can cause serious health problems and, in vulnerable populations, can be fatal. Forcing elderly residents with existing health conditions to rely on coal burners for heating endangers their wellbeing and damages the environment. The question now is whether public scrutiny and regulatory pressure will force the estates to close the loopholes they have used and accelerate compliance, or whether the current trajectory will continue.