The debate about how long it will take a Conservative Party to abolish the Home Information Pack continues today with yet another article appearing in the Estate Agency Today online publication in which we have AHIPP and SLINTA making comment.
Regrettably there is not much new to report on within the article, though it is perhaps worth commenting that even the anti-HIP lobbyists seem to be resigned to the fact that to attempt to use secondary legislation to dismantle the HIP would be risky and that primary legislation is the best way forward. This is interesting as I have always held and expressed the view that exercising or attempting to exercise the power to suspend section 162 of the Housing Act would not be a wise legal choice.
Regrettably there is not much new to report on within the article, though it is perhaps worth commenting that even the anti-HIP lobbyists seem to be resigned to the fact that to attempt to use secondary legislation to dismantle the HIP would be risky and that primary legislation is the best way forward. This is interesting as I have always held and expressed the view that exercising or attempting to exercise the power to suspend section 162 of the Housing Act would not be a wise legal choice.
Commenting on this Salmon the spokesman for SLINTA says:
“It is sensible to scrap HIPs via secondary legislation.
“If it was only suspended, then like some hideous beast from a horror movie, HIPs could come back ‘revived from the grave’ by a future government. Safer to kill it stone dead.”
He reference to ‘secondary legislation’ is wrong as the only secondary legislation available is section 162 and therefore it is clear that this statement amounts to an admission on his part that passing primary legislation that could take up to 18 months is the only way forward.
This must be good news for supporters of the HIP as if primary legislation is required why not take the opportunity to use the HIP to bring about badly needed reform to the home buying and selling process.
“It is sensible to scrap HIPs via secondary legislation.
“If it was only suspended, then like some hideous beast from a horror movie, HIPs could come back ‘revived from the grave’ by a future government. Safer to kill it stone dead.”
He reference to ‘secondary legislation’ is wrong as the only secondary legislation available is section 162 and therefore it is clear that this statement amounts to an admission on his part that passing primary legislation that could take up to 18 months is the only way forward.
This must be good news for supporters of the HIP as if primary legislation is required why not take the opportunity to use the HIP to bring about badly needed reform to the home buying and selling process.
No comments:
Post a Comment