For information, please find below a press release being issued today by the PCCB regarding the recent search spot check exercise;
PCCB Finds Good Personal Search Standards
A recent PCCB compliance exercise has revealed good quality standards amongst personal searches and confirmed that they are just as reliable as Local Authority Searches.
The audit was just one of a broad range of compliance activities undertaken throughout 2009: investigations focused particularly on the legitimacy of information sources used by a representative sample of Search Code subscribers. In summary, the audit confirmed that the searches sampled were substantially compliant with the relevant regulations and with the Search Code. It did identify some errors and/or omissions, and weak practices, in several searches but these same failings featured in searches conducted by local authorities in roughly equal measure. These issues have been addressed with the Code subscribers concerned, and appear to result from a lack of diligence rather than from deliberate attempts to short-circuit the provisions in the Code. PCCB will also be taking up its concerns with the Local Authorities sampled.
The experience gained from this exercise will inform the Board’s risk based approach to both compliance and enforcement of both the Search and HIP Codes of Practice in the coming year - and also feed into its work with different Trading Standards officers. The exercise has also enabled PCCB to develop and refine the guidance it issues to registered firms to further improve compliance.
PCCB Chairman, Richard Footitt said: “The PCCB is pleased to note the progress and improvements that have been made by the personal search industry during what was a very tough year. Our compliance activities show that Code subscribers are working hard to achieve high standards, and as we carry forward our work, we expect to see standards improve yet further. PCCB continues to attract new Code subscribers, and following on from our pre-registration product vetting processes, it is clear that there are significant benefits to be realised by firms registering with the PCCB, not least to bring their products up to Code standards. During 2010, we aim to develop our relationship with Trading Standards to the point where personal search firms currently outside the scope of the Code are subject to similar checks as those faced by Code subscribers.
We fully anticipate that further developments to the Code, together with the support we provide to registered firms, will ensure higher standards in 2010 and beyond to the benefit of consumers. Whatever happens in the future, it is vital that the significant progress and advances made by the personal search industry since HIPs were introduced are sustained by maintaining a regulatory framework. Searches containing accurate information and produced quickly up front are critical to the home buying and selling process, and a return to old practices is not acceptable.”
Kind regards
Frank Finch
Property Codes Compliance Ltd
Friday 29 January 2010
The home information pack leads to improvement in the quality and delivery of the water and sewage search
Two years into the era of home information packs it is easy, given the political uncertainty surrounding their future, to overlook the benefits of the change they have made in certain areas, to our antiquated home buying process.
One area in particular where there is real evidence of improvement is the delivery and quality of water and sewerage searches. Under the HIP regulations there is an obligation upon a seller to include within the pack comprising of legal documents and the energy performance certificate, information on the possibility of the property being flooded by foul sewage, as well as the established information about connection of the property to the public sewerage and mains water networks and the liabilities and restrictions associated with the proximity of water company assets to a property.
This represents a far more comprehensive collection of data than was previously supplied before the HIP was introduced and has clearly placed the consumer who is thinking of buying, in a far more informed position.
Encouraged by government to put into place improved infrastructure to cope with the expected increase in demand following the introduction of the HIP, water companies have invested heavily in new technology and service areas of their business, with the consequence that almost 90% of water searches in England and Wales are delivered in less than 3 days. This compares favourably with only 71% of searches being delivered in less than 3 days in 2006, prior to the beginning of the HIP regime.
There remain in my view areas within the water industry where there could still be further improvement. The cost of the water and sewage search still remains rather arbitrary and high, and as for the data the reports contain, there is strong argument for this to be delivered in a more consumer friendly summary so as to make it easier to follow and understand.
The water companies clearly have much to thank the HIP for, and as this has also resulted in a benefit to the consumer, it is hard to see why any future government, particularly a government that prides itself on being ‘progressive’, would wish to see an end to the ongoing improvements to the home buying process that industry is continuing to introduce on the back of the HIP.
One area in particular where there is real evidence of improvement is the delivery and quality of water and sewerage searches. Under the HIP regulations there is an obligation upon a seller to include within the pack comprising of legal documents and the energy performance certificate, information on the possibility of the property being flooded by foul sewage, as well as the established information about connection of the property to the public sewerage and mains water networks and the liabilities and restrictions associated with the proximity of water company assets to a property.
This represents a far more comprehensive collection of data than was previously supplied before the HIP was introduced and has clearly placed the consumer who is thinking of buying, in a far more informed position.
Encouraged by government to put into place improved infrastructure to cope with the expected increase in demand following the introduction of the HIP, water companies have invested heavily in new technology and service areas of their business, with the consequence that almost 90% of water searches in England and Wales are delivered in less than 3 days. This compares favourably with only 71% of searches being delivered in less than 3 days in 2006, prior to the beginning of the HIP regime.
There remain in my view areas within the water industry where there could still be further improvement. The cost of the water and sewage search still remains rather arbitrary and high, and as for the data the reports contain, there is strong argument for this to be delivered in a more consumer friendly summary so as to make it easier to follow and understand.
The water companies clearly have much to thank the HIP for, and as this has also resulted in a benefit to the consumer, it is hard to see why any future government, particularly a government that prides itself on being ‘progressive’, would wish to see an end to the ongoing improvements to the home buying process that industry is continuing to introduce on the back of the HIP.
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Government gives it's support to the Home Information Pack industry
There was more debate in the Commons yesterday on Home Information Packs, and as sure as night follows day, Conservative MPS were at it again, raising the same old questions and quite amusingly relying on purported feedback from estate agents and the Law Society. Not the most reliable sources when it comes to looking for informed views!
The questions kicked off with a question that has featured before regarding the methodology to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIP. As Government has explained on countless occasions in the past there is no up to date information on this though as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Mr. Ian Austin explained, the Baseline Report published in 2007 is in the process of being updated.
Not content with this Mr Austin was then challenged on the effectiveness of the HIP given that estate agents in Southend claim rather bizarrely that the HIP has damaged the property market. I have to contain myself when I hear a claim of this type! I am no economist but really how can anyone claim with an air of credibility that the humble HIP costing little more than £200 has had such a major and catastrophic effect on the housing market. Utter rubbish!
At least with Mr Austin we have someone who understands the real world. In rebuttal MR Austin explained:
‘I do not accept that at all. Despite a difficult housing market, evidence shows that HIPs actually speed up sales. I am not sure whether there is a branch of Connells estate agency in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but its survey of more than 37,000 transactions showed that sales with HIPs go through an average of seven days quicker.’
Not happy with raising a ridiculous claim the Conservative MP, Mr Mackay, decides to ask Mr Austin why Government continues to run with the HIP, presumably on the basis that the agents in Southend on which the whole country’s view is based think they are not working and should be scrapped!
Mr Austin then quite rightly responded by highlighting that irrespective of what the agents in Southend may think Mr Mackay needs to think beyond agents and take into account the thousand of jobs that would be lost if the Conservative Party is elected and goes ahead and ‘scraps’ the HIP. He told Mr Mackay:
‘ As always, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's advice, but I can tell him that thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process and 13,000 people have invested thousands of pounds in training as energy assessors. The Opposition need to explain why they want to put all those jobs and businesses at risk. He needs to tell all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on the process why the Opposition want to put them out of work’.
From those lovely agents in Southend, attention then turned to the Law Society, the trade body that purports to look after the interests of solicitors. I say ‘purports’ as its my belief, and one shared by other solicitors, that it has little understanding of the needs and requirements of the high street solicitor and has done very little to protect those with interests that fall outside of the City.
Mr Jones, Conservative asked:
‘The interim results of the updated baseline research report are not due to be published until this summer at the earliest. Given that no empirical evidence is therefore available to the Government about the impact of HIPs on the current housing market, why do they not listen to bodies such as the Law Society, which has said clearly that HIPs "add a significant layer of costs for consumers but produce no discernable benefit"?
I am not sure which document this quote comes from but it is clear that as before the question is raised on wholly inaccurate information. There is no added cost. The HIP is part of the legal process and with or without it the consumer pays the same. In fact the cost of selling and buying has come down since the HIP was introduced. As for benefits Mr Austin covered this in his response:
‘As a result of HIPs, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their energy performance certificate that can help them cut their fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions. That is just one of the many benefits of the HIP process that we have introduced. I thought that tackling climate change was one of the big priorities for the new, modern Conservative party. So much, I suppose, for voting blue to go green’.
He added:
‘The recent Office of Fair Trading consumer research on the HIP process showed that a third of buyers were influenced by the HIP and that they had found the new property information questionnaire the most useful component of it. As I said earlier, Connells estate agents surveyed 37,000 transactions and showed that HIPs sped up the process, which is good news’.
Mr Austin was then asked about the Baseline Survey and of how this according to the Conservative MP Mr. Stewart Jackson showed there ‘was minimal public knowledge of and interest in HIPs, that people considered them a waste of time, that buyers were not consulting them and that costs were being duplicated’.
In response Mr Austin made the valid point that it is still too early too make this type of claim and that in any event the research actually shows that the benefits are there to be seen:
‘As I said a short while ago, what the research actually shows is that in a short period, nine out of 10 buyers used the HIP. One in three said that it helped them decide which home to buy, which is a big improvement on the figures shortly after the introduction of HIPs, and shows that the system is becoming more helpful and useful all the time. The question that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Front Benchers must answer is why they want to sling out of work the thousands of people who have invested time and money in training to implement the process, and to cut the jobs of their constituents who depend on it’.
How refreshing to see Government sticking up for the industry it created and for highlighting the massive job loss that will follow if the HIP is scrapped. I personally believe that Grant Shapps is also concerned about this aspect – he is a businessman and must be aware of the sacrifices, hard work and personal investment in both time and money that goes into establishing and making a business a success. People in power and who ‘play’ politics must always keep in mind the personal tragedy that can happen when industries are dismantled for no reason other than political gain.
The questions kicked off with a question that has featured before regarding the methodology to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIP. As Government has explained on countless occasions in the past there is no up to date information on this though as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Mr. Ian Austin explained, the Baseline Report published in 2007 is in the process of being updated.
Not content with this Mr Austin was then challenged on the effectiveness of the HIP given that estate agents in Southend claim rather bizarrely that the HIP has damaged the property market. I have to contain myself when I hear a claim of this type! I am no economist but really how can anyone claim with an air of credibility that the humble HIP costing little more than £200 has had such a major and catastrophic effect on the housing market. Utter rubbish!
At least with Mr Austin we have someone who understands the real world. In rebuttal MR Austin explained:
‘I do not accept that at all. Despite a difficult housing market, evidence shows that HIPs actually speed up sales. I am not sure whether there is a branch of Connells estate agency in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but its survey of more than 37,000 transactions showed that sales with HIPs go through an average of seven days quicker.’
Not happy with raising a ridiculous claim the Conservative MP, Mr Mackay, decides to ask Mr Austin why Government continues to run with the HIP, presumably on the basis that the agents in Southend on which the whole country’s view is based think they are not working and should be scrapped!
Mr Austin then quite rightly responded by highlighting that irrespective of what the agents in Southend may think Mr Mackay needs to think beyond agents and take into account the thousand of jobs that would be lost if the Conservative Party is elected and goes ahead and ‘scraps’ the HIP. He told Mr Mackay:
‘ As always, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's advice, but I can tell him that thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process and 13,000 people have invested thousands of pounds in training as energy assessors. The Opposition need to explain why they want to put all those jobs and businesses at risk. He needs to tell all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on the process why the Opposition want to put them out of work’.
From those lovely agents in Southend, attention then turned to the Law Society, the trade body that purports to look after the interests of solicitors. I say ‘purports’ as its my belief, and one shared by other solicitors, that it has little understanding of the needs and requirements of the high street solicitor and has done very little to protect those with interests that fall outside of the City.
Mr Jones, Conservative asked:
‘The interim results of the updated baseline research report are not due to be published until this summer at the earliest. Given that no empirical evidence is therefore available to the Government about the impact of HIPs on the current housing market, why do they not listen to bodies such as the Law Society, which has said clearly that HIPs "add a significant layer of costs for consumers but produce no discernable benefit"?
I am not sure which document this quote comes from but it is clear that as before the question is raised on wholly inaccurate information. There is no added cost. The HIP is part of the legal process and with or without it the consumer pays the same. In fact the cost of selling and buying has come down since the HIP was introduced. As for benefits Mr Austin covered this in his response:
‘As a result of HIPs, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their energy performance certificate that can help them cut their fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions. That is just one of the many benefits of the HIP process that we have introduced. I thought that tackling climate change was one of the big priorities for the new, modern Conservative party. So much, I suppose, for voting blue to go green’.
He added:
‘The recent Office of Fair Trading consumer research on the HIP process showed that a third of buyers were influenced by the HIP and that they had found the new property information questionnaire the most useful component of it. As I said earlier, Connells estate agents surveyed 37,000 transactions and showed that HIPs sped up the process, which is good news’.
Mr Austin was then asked about the Baseline Survey and of how this according to the Conservative MP Mr. Stewart Jackson showed there ‘was minimal public knowledge of and interest in HIPs, that people considered them a waste of time, that buyers were not consulting them and that costs were being duplicated’.
In response Mr Austin made the valid point that it is still too early too make this type of claim and that in any event the research actually shows that the benefits are there to be seen:
‘As I said a short while ago, what the research actually shows is that in a short period, nine out of 10 buyers used the HIP. One in three said that it helped them decide which home to buy, which is a big improvement on the figures shortly after the introduction of HIPs, and shows that the system is becoming more helpful and useful all the time. The question that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Front Benchers must answer is why they want to sling out of work the thousands of people who have invested time and money in training to implement the process, and to cut the jobs of their constituents who depend on it’.
How refreshing to see Government sticking up for the industry it created and for highlighting the massive job loss that will follow if the HIP is scrapped. I personally believe that Grant Shapps is also concerned about this aspect – he is a businessman and must be aware of the sacrifices, hard work and personal investment in both time and money that goes into establishing and making a business a success. People in power and who ‘play’ politics must always keep in mind the personal tragedy that can happen when industries are dismantled for no reason other than political gain.
Tuesday 26 January 2010
Government defend home information packs in lively Lords' debate
A lively debate took place this week within the House of Lords involving as the Government’s spokesman, Lord McKenzie of Luton – the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, DCLG & DWP. This stemmed from questions raised by Lord Redesdale on the subject of EPCs.
Below are some of the relevant extracts:
‘Lord Bates: My Lords, when energy performance certificates were introduced in Northern Ireland, they were not attached to the costly and bureaucratic home information packs. Will the Minister explain why the same policy approach was not taken in England and Wales?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, home information packs are bedding down well and have proved to be a useful instrument to help purchasers. I think that the right decision was made.
Lord Tope: My Lords, how many buildings in the commercial and domestic sectors do not have EPCs?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, EPCs are needed for buildings that are constructed, sold or rented out. There are something like 4 million domestic EPCs and 141,000 non-domestic EPCs on the register. I cannot specifically answer the question how many there should be, but there are high levels of compliance, certainly in the domestic sector.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the Minister comment further on his remark that the home information packs are bedding down well? Has he not read in the
press comments by estate agents saying that the packs have not been any help whatever, which I believe is the general public view?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, more than 2 million HIPs have been prepared, providing important information up front to help to inform buyers' decisions. As a result, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their EPC that can help them to cut up to £300 off their fuel bills. Despite a difficult housing market, HIPs are helping to reduce transaction times. An estate agency survey, which looked at 37,000 transactions, showed that, on average, sales with HIPs go through seven days quicker.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, on the home information pack figures that the Minister gave us, how many people have had to go back and get new information packs because there is a very short timescale for their viability?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand, but I can say that we intend to evaluate the effectiveness of HIPs by updating the 2007 HIP Baseline Research report. The new report should be available later this year.
Below are some of the relevant extracts:
‘Lord Bates: My Lords, when energy performance certificates were introduced in Northern Ireland, they were not attached to the costly and bureaucratic home information packs. Will the Minister explain why the same policy approach was not taken in England and Wales?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, home information packs are bedding down well and have proved to be a useful instrument to help purchasers. I think that the right decision was made.
Lord Tope: My Lords, how many buildings in the commercial and domestic sectors do not have EPCs?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, EPCs are needed for buildings that are constructed, sold or rented out. There are something like 4 million domestic EPCs and 141,000 non-domestic EPCs on the register. I cannot specifically answer the question how many there should be, but there are high levels of compliance, certainly in the domestic sector.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the Minister comment further on his remark that the home information packs are bedding down well? Has he not read in the
press comments by estate agents saying that the packs have not been any help whatever, which I believe is the general public view?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, more than 2 million HIPs have been prepared, providing important information up front to help to inform buyers' decisions. As a result, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their EPC that can help them to cut up to £300 off their fuel bills. Despite a difficult housing market, HIPs are helping to reduce transaction times. An estate agency survey, which looked at 37,000 transactions, showed that, on average, sales with HIPs go through seven days quicker.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, on the home information pack figures that the Minister gave us, how many people have had to go back and get new information packs because there is a very short timescale for their viability?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand, but I can say that we intend to evaluate the effectiveness of HIPs by updating the 2007 HIP Baseline Research report. The new report should be available later this year.
Monday 25 January 2010
The history behind home information packs shows that it is the consumer that counts
At a time when the future of the home information pack looks rather gloomy it is perhaps helpful to remember and remind ourselves of the background to, and reasons behind the establishment of the HIP.
In fact the HIP has its roots in a cycle of ‘boom and bust’ similar to that recently witnessed. It was following the housing boom of the late 1980s and the subsequent housing market recession of 1991-93, the then Labour opposition began to consider whether fundamental reform was needed in the housing market. This finally took expression in the Labour Party manifesto in 1997 which stated: "The problems of gazumping have reappeared. Those who break their bargains should be liable to pay the costs inflicted on others, in particular, legal and survey costs. We are consulting on the best way of tackling the problems of gazumping in the interests of responsible home buyers and sellers."
Upon election to Government Labour found following research that the current home sales process was wasteful and inefficient with around 28% of agreed transactions falling through between acceptance of the offer and exchange of contracts. As the then Minister of State, Jeff Rooker commented (28/12/2002): "Sellers' Packs will make the home- buying and selling process more transparent, faster and consumer friendly. They will reduce the stress and wasted costs suffered by hundreds of thousands of consumers each year."
Details of proposals for HIPs were published for consultation in "The key to easier home buying and selling' (DETR, 1998) and in chapter 4 of the Housing Green Paper 'Quality and choice: A decent home for all" (DETR, 2000a). This policy was confirmed in chapter 2 of the subsequent Housing Policy Statement "The way forward for housing" (DETR, 2000b). A pilot study in Bristol (ODPM, 2001) examined the practicality of HIPs although the number of packs evaluated was small. There was widespread criticism of the proposals but, despite that, the Government introduced a Homes Bill in 2000 that would have made a seller's pack mandatory. The Bill ran out of time as a result of the general election in May 2001. The Labour party reaffirmed its commitment to introduce a seller's pack in its manifesto and when re-elected consulted further on proposals for a HIP as part of a wider Housing Bill in March 2003. The Housing Bill was introduced in November 2003 and became an Act in 2004.
The Government faced a number of choices when it set about reforming the transaction process. These included the use of a binding contract over buyers and sellers, requiring lenders to provide faster mortgage offers and encouraging greater use of information technology to speed up the process. However, the Government took the view that ensuring buyers were better informed about the property they were purchasing would be the most practical way forward. A particular issue was the condition of the property. Only 20-25% of home buyers commissioned their own surveys before completing a purchase and it was felt that better information on condition in particular would improve price bargaining and make for a more efficient market.
The Government argued that HIPs would:
• Enable buyers and sellers to negotiate from an informed position;
• Increase openness and transparency, helping to make the process less adversarial and stressful;
• Help the parties commit more quickly to the transaction, shortening the period of uncertainty between acceptance of an offer and exchange of contracts;
• Increase certainty by avoiding unwelcome surprises which currently cause renegotiation and transaction failures after terms have been agreed;
• Reduce wasted costs resulting from high rates of failed transactions; and
• Help shorten the overall transaction timescale.
The Government's resolve to introduce legislation has been strongly tested. Although it was an original commitment was made in 1997 it was not until 2004 that legislation was introduced and passed.
It took this time as Government came across much resistance. This is not surprising given reform to the housing market has never over the centuries proved easy. However, it survived partly because the Government felt that despite the arguments being posed by solicitors and estate agents against reform, popular support remained very strong with the Department of Communities and Local Government, (or Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) as it was then), experiencing its biggest ever post bag of public support for the reforms when they were announced.
In March 2006 the government gave the go-ahead for multiple certification schemes. In June 2006 draft regulations were made setting out the detailed contents of Home Information Packs, rules governing the availability of packs, exceptions from the pack duties and arrangements for enforcement.
Originally the HIP was going to be required from June 1, 2007. However, just ten days before that date, Communities Secretary Ms Kelly announced that they would be phased in from August 2007, and initially only for larger properties. Between 1 August and 10 September only homes marketed with four or more bedrooms were legally required to have an HIP. This was extended to cover homes with three or more bedrooms from September 10.
On November 22, the then Housing Minister Yvette Cooper announced that HIPs would be rolled out to include one and two bedroom properties as of December 14, completing the Government's phased introduction of Home Information Packs to residential homes marketed for sale within England and Wales.
A chequered history! However we are now here with an established industry through which the consumer is beginning to see and benefit from the delivery of the original objectives of greater certainty and transparency as well as shorter transaction times. After taking so long to get where we are it would be a travesty to be thrown back into the dark ages. We should learn from the lesson this history discloses, that is, irrespective of stakeholder self interest and the general lack of support for change within certain camps, at the end of the day it is the consumer that has and continues to be totally disillusioned with the home selling and buying process. The political party that tunes into this vein of feeling will be the party that has a greater chance of winning support for housing policy. At the end of the day the HIP informed consumer ‘gets’ the objective of the HIP and given the choice would retain the HIP providing it could be used as a basis for reform.
In fact the HIP has its roots in a cycle of ‘boom and bust’ similar to that recently witnessed. It was following the housing boom of the late 1980s and the subsequent housing market recession of 1991-93, the then Labour opposition began to consider whether fundamental reform was needed in the housing market. This finally took expression in the Labour Party manifesto in 1997 which stated: "The problems of gazumping have reappeared. Those who break their bargains should be liable to pay the costs inflicted on others, in particular, legal and survey costs. We are consulting on the best way of tackling the problems of gazumping in the interests of responsible home buyers and sellers."
Upon election to Government Labour found following research that the current home sales process was wasteful and inefficient with around 28% of agreed transactions falling through between acceptance of the offer and exchange of contracts. As the then Minister of State, Jeff Rooker commented (28/12/2002): "Sellers' Packs will make the home- buying and selling process more transparent, faster and consumer friendly. They will reduce the stress and wasted costs suffered by hundreds of thousands of consumers each year."
Details of proposals for HIPs were published for consultation in "The key to easier home buying and selling' (DETR, 1998) and in chapter 4 of the Housing Green Paper 'Quality and choice: A decent home for all" (DETR, 2000a). This policy was confirmed in chapter 2 of the subsequent Housing Policy Statement "The way forward for housing" (DETR, 2000b). A pilot study in Bristol (ODPM, 2001) examined the practicality of HIPs although the number of packs evaluated was small. There was widespread criticism of the proposals but, despite that, the Government introduced a Homes Bill in 2000 that would have made a seller's pack mandatory. The Bill ran out of time as a result of the general election in May 2001. The Labour party reaffirmed its commitment to introduce a seller's pack in its manifesto and when re-elected consulted further on proposals for a HIP as part of a wider Housing Bill in March 2003. The Housing Bill was introduced in November 2003 and became an Act in 2004.
The Government faced a number of choices when it set about reforming the transaction process. These included the use of a binding contract over buyers and sellers, requiring lenders to provide faster mortgage offers and encouraging greater use of information technology to speed up the process. However, the Government took the view that ensuring buyers were better informed about the property they were purchasing would be the most practical way forward. A particular issue was the condition of the property. Only 20-25% of home buyers commissioned their own surveys before completing a purchase and it was felt that better information on condition in particular would improve price bargaining and make for a more efficient market.
The Government argued that HIPs would:
• Enable buyers and sellers to negotiate from an informed position;
• Increase openness and transparency, helping to make the process less adversarial and stressful;
• Help the parties commit more quickly to the transaction, shortening the period of uncertainty between acceptance of an offer and exchange of contracts;
• Increase certainty by avoiding unwelcome surprises which currently cause renegotiation and transaction failures after terms have been agreed;
• Reduce wasted costs resulting from high rates of failed transactions; and
• Help shorten the overall transaction timescale.
The Government's resolve to introduce legislation has been strongly tested. Although it was an original commitment was made in 1997 it was not until 2004 that legislation was introduced and passed.
It took this time as Government came across much resistance. This is not surprising given reform to the housing market has never over the centuries proved easy. However, it survived partly because the Government felt that despite the arguments being posed by solicitors and estate agents against reform, popular support remained very strong with the Department of Communities and Local Government, (or Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) as it was then), experiencing its biggest ever post bag of public support for the reforms when they were announced.
In March 2006 the government gave the go-ahead for multiple certification schemes. In June 2006 draft regulations were made setting out the detailed contents of Home Information Packs, rules governing the availability of packs, exceptions from the pack duties and arrangements for enforcement.
Originally the HIP was going to be required from June 1, 2007. However, just ten days before that date, Communities Secretary Ms Kelly announced that they would be phased in from August 2007, and initially only for larger properties. Between 1 August and 10 September only homes marketed with four or more bedrooms were legally required to have an HIP. This was extended to cover homes with three or more bedrooms from September 10.
On November 22, the then Housing Minister Yvette Cooper announced that HIPs would be rolled out to include one and two bedroom properties as of December 14, completing the Government's phased introduction of Home Information Packs to residential homes marketed for sale within England and Wales.
A chequered history! However we are now here with an established industry through which the consumer is beginning to see and benefit from the delivery of the original objectives of greater certainty and transparency as well as shorter transaction times. After taking so long to get where we are it would be a travesty to be thrown back into the dark ages. We should learn from the lesson this history discloses, that is, irrespective of stakeholder self interest and the general lack of support for change within certain camps, at the end of the day it is the consumer that has and continues to be totally disillusioned with the home selling and buying process. The political party that tunes into this vein of feeling will be the party that has a greater chance of winning support for housing policy. At the end of the day the HIP informed consumer ‘gets’ the objective of the HIP and given the choice would retain the HIP providing it could be used as a basis for reform.
Friday 22 January 2010
Apathy if not addressed will be the death of any hope of success with reform proposals... a contribution from Daphne Payne
As a founder member of Pro DEA I and my colleagues found that apathy amongst those that purport to support this fledgling industry for Energy Efficiency can’t be bothered. We were putting in (as you are) our time and efforts to try to organise a Not for Profit organisation for Energy Assessors from all the Energy Streams only to find if it meant committing their selves by putting their hand in their pockets or getting involved they then disappeared into thin ice.
There are none so blind as those that don’t want to see – that they will be out of a job come the summer.
There are none so blind as those that don’t want to see – that they will be out of a job come the summer.
Blog Contribution by Sharon Crossland, founder of www.leaseholdlife.info
HRG is very pleased to add to their blog an article that Sharon Crossland the founder of the excellent website www.leaseholdlife.info has kindly written.
The site is an information resource for leasehold owners, resident management companies and renting tenants. Sharon has written extensively for News on the Block, a publication specifically for flat owners, and has also written a number of articles for hipconsultant.co.uk. She has also been featured in the Observer on the importance of securing a good managing agent. Her experience and current role as acting intermediary between the Directors of her block's RTM company and their managing agent has led to her being accepted by the Institute of Residential Property Management as an Affiliate Member.
ARTICLE
I have been following the unfolding story of HIPs with a great deal of interest and came to the early conclusion that fundamentally they were a sound proposition. They came into the public arena in the guise of Sellers Packs in 1998 and transformed into HIPs in 2006 but their aim remained the same - to improve the conveyancing process. If anyone recalls how AHIPP laid out their stall they will remember that it was pretty well thought out. It's all somewhat irrelevant now though because if the Conservatives get into power at the next General Election they will probably be scrapped, at least in their current guise. The Shadow Housing minister Grant Shapps has made no secret of his hatred of them but he has yet to come up with either an alternative or any ideas on adaptation so where will this leave conveyancing, especially leasehold?
Of the two residential property tenures, freehold and leasehold (I am not including Commonhold because of its pretty non-existent takeup), leasehold has always been the more complicated tenure because of the involvement of additional parties and the complexities of the pre-contract enquiry information. The HIPs (No 2) Regulations broke down leasehold information into two sections – required (mandatory) and authorised (voluntary). There were fourteen questions in the voluntary section which were designed as a 'catch all' provision to allow sellers to disclose all, part or none of it, at their own discretion.
AHIPP were lobbying to get this voluntary information made mandatory and had arranged for the introduction of a Private Members Bill into the House of Lords in 2007. Unfortunately it was not pursued past a second reading due to other priorities at the time.
Sourcing leasehold information from third parties remained problematic in that managing agents were under no obligation to provide it either under the old system or the new and certainly not to a timeframe dictated by the seller. Pricing varied widely between agents as there were no statutory guidelines and a leasehold HIP was proving to be considerably more expensive than that of freehold. So at the beginning of 2009, the only mandatory document required for a leasehold HIP was that of the lease. There was however a new addition to the HIPs pack being worked on - the PIQ (Property Information Questionnaire) which was going to add some mandatory leasehold questions.
There has never been enough information on leasehold tenure provided early enough in the conveyancing process but I personally think that AHIPP have gone further to assist prospective leaseholders than anyone else. The fact that the lease was included as a mandatory document was helpful because buyers don't usually get to see what they have purchased and signed up to. This is due to the fact that the procedural element of assigning the lease is dealt with by the conveyancer, leading to buyers often finding themselves with defective leases (the other main cause of leasehold problems). The PIQ introduced some key mandatory leasehold questions which AHIPP thought was a good start and went some way to addressing the issue of putting leasehold information provision at the front of the conveyancing process, which it did. This issue was further assisted by the inclusion in the pack of the ARMA downloadable leaflet 'Living in Leasehold Flats' ensuring that yet more information would be getting out into the wider domain.
Whilst the issue of leasehold information provision is likely to be raised at a future meeting of AHIPP's legal and leasehold working group, which I hope will again focus on the voluntary information currently contained in the Regulations, the focus for the time being is on the future of HIPs should the Conservative win the general election. That is perfectly understandable but regardless of who wins, the leasehold sector cannot afford to lose this foothold on leasehold information provision. if it does, how on earth is any prospective purchaser going to be able to adhere to the guiding legal principle of buying residential property, that of Caveat Emptor' (buyer beware)?
The site is an information resource for leasehold owners, resident management companies and renting tenants. Sharon has written extensively for News on the Block, a publication specifically for flat owners, and has also written a number of articles for hipconsultant.co.uk. She has also been featured in the Observer on the importance of securing a good managing agent. Her experience and current role as acting intermediary between the Directors of her block's RTM company and their managing agent has led to her being accepted by the Institute of Residential Property Management as an Affiliate Member.
ARTICLE
I have been following the unfolding story of HIPs with a great deal of interest and came to the early conclusion that fundamentally they were a sound proposition. They came into the public arena in the guise of Sellers Packs in 1998 and transformed into HIPs in 2006 but their aim remained the same - to improve the conveyancing process. If anyone recalls how AHIPP laid out their stall they will remember that it was pretty well thought out. It's all somewhat irrelevant now though because if the Conservatives get into power at the next General Election they will probably be scrapped, at least in their current guise. The Shadow Housing minister Grant Shapps has made no secret of his hatred of them but he has yet to come up with either an alternative or any ideas on adaptation so where will this leave conveyancing, especially leasehold?
Of the two residential property tenures, freehold and leasehold (I am not including Commonhold because of its pretty non-existent takeup), leasehold has always been the more complicated tenure because of the involvement of additional parties and the complexities of the pre-contract enquiry information. The HIPs (No 2) Regulations broke down leasehold information into two sections – required (mandatory) and authorised (voluntary). There were fourteen questions in the voluntary section which were designed as a 'catch all' provision to allow sellers to disclose all, part or none of it, at their own discretion.
AHIPP were lobbying to get this voluntary information made mandatory and had arranged for the introduction of a Private Members Bill into the House of Lords in 2007. Unfortunately it was not pursued past a second reading due to other priorities at the time.
Sourcing leasehold information from third parties remained problematic in that managing agents were under no obligation to provide it either under the old system or the new and certainly not to a timeframe dictated by the seller. Pricing varied widely between agents as there were no statutory guidelines and a leasehold HIP was proving to be considerably more expensive than that of freehold. So at the beginning of 2009, the only mandatory document required for a leasehold HIP was that of the lease. There was however a new addition to the HIPs pack being worked on - the PIQ (Property Information Questionnaire) which was going to add some mandatory leasehold questions.
There has never been enough information on leasehold tenure provided early enough in the conveyancing process but I personally think that AHIPP have gone further to assist prospective leaseholders than anyone else. The fact that the lease was included as a mandatory document was helpful because buyers don't usually get to see what they have purchased and signed up to. This is due to the fact that the procedural element of assigning the lease is dealt with by the conveyancer, leading to buyers often finding themselves with defective leases (the other main cause of leasehold problems). The PIQ introduced some key mandatory leasehold questions which AHIPP thought was a good start and went some way to addressing the issue of putting leasehold information provision at the front of the conveyancing process, which it did. This issue was further assisted by the inclusion in the pack of the ARMA downloadable leaflet 'Living in Leasehold Flats' ensuring that yet more information would be getting out into the wider domain.
Whilst the issue of leasehold information provision is likely to be raised at a future meeting of AHIPP's legal and leasehold working group, which I hope will again focus on the voluntary information currently contained in the Regulations, the focus for the time being is on the future of HIPs should the Conservative win the general election. That is perfectly understandable but regardless of who wins, the leasehold sector cannot afford to lose this foothold on leasehold information provision. if it does, how on earth is any prospective purchaser going to be able to adhere to the guiding legal principle of buying residential property, that of Caveat Emptor' (buyer beware)?
Tuesday 19 January 2010
Are home information pack suppliers socially irresponsible?
I have just read an interesting blog entry ( http://bit.ly/6dkDvj ) written by someone who operates an energy assessor. Don’t get me wrong everyone is entitled to their opinion, and indeed I have a lot of respect for people who express their views, however the writer of this blog entry really needs to be less insular and to get out in the world and speak with others.
To begin with, the rant starts with a rather ludicrous suggestion that the cost of the HIP/EPC is having an impact on social mobility. The blogger actually goes so far as to accuse the HIP of ‘imprisoning’ some home owners. I have come across a wide range of reasons to support the abolition of the HIP but never have I come across such a comical observation.
To begin with, the rant starts with a rather ludicrous suggestion that the cost of the HIP/EPC is having an impact on social mobility. The blogger actually goes so far as to accuse the HIP of ‘imprisoning’ some home owners. I have come across a wide range of reasons to support the abolition of the HIP but never have I come across such a comical observation.
The writer says referring to someone he knows:
‘He is now a prisoner in his own home, on the dole, and further hemmed-in by a lack of money to pay for a HIP’
How daft to blame the cost of the HIP and EPC for this situation. To begin with we all know that a HIP, including an EPC can be picked up for between £180 and £200. A large sum I agree, for some. However, is the cost of this really the determining factor when a home owner is thinking of selling? Surely jobs security, the availability of credit and the price of the property generally, are far more important?
Furthermore, if the writer’s friend has lost his job, and is looking to sale, yes he will have to find the money to pay for the HIP, but this is not the only cost he will have to meet as he will also need to instruct a solicitor to handle the sale. Before the HIP was introduced many solicitors would ask a seller at the point of instruction for a payment of account of between £150 and £200 to cover the cost of the searches. The ‘friend’ would still have needed therefore, with or without the cost of the HIP, to find the money to meet this requirement.
Social mobility is more to with the availability of more affordable homes and or a move away from our obsession in this country on home ownership. We should perhaps look to the continent where far more people rent and are therefore able to move around without the hang up of sale associated cost.
The writer then turns his attention to the ‘tit for tat’ exchanges between the HIP proponents and those who support Mr. Shapps with his obsessive desire to rid society of the HIP. In particular his focuses on people like myself who he says often attempt to defend the indefensible.
He points out:
‘One survey metric the industry is unable to fight, but still insists on trying to disprove, is the lack of interest in HIPs from buyers. ..................... HIPs are for solicitors; punters don’t want to wade through 60-odd pages of legalese, for every property they visit’.
He adds:
‘One side says something and the other feels compelled to say the opposite, within days. It’s like a childish game of tennis; except the only people playing are the one’s with most to win or lose – they certainly don’t include folks like my friend, or the lowly DEA trapped in the middle of this mess’.
In response why should I and others be made to feel guilty for wishing to correct ant-HIP propaganda? There is so much misinformation out there and add to this political spin it is not surprising that the consumer is confused and holds a jaundiced view of the HIP. I make no apology for wishing to educate and speaking out on issues which I firmly believe in.
It is also untrue to suggest that suppliers of HIPs have not time for energy assessors or those in financial difficulties. There are many suppliers out there who value the contribution of the energy assessor and who do all they can to ensure the energy assessor is not overlooked! Remember also there are a vast number of energy assessors who double up as HIP suppliers and have used the HIP to help maximize their return on the delivery of the EPC.
As for doing more to help those who cannot afford to move I am not sure what more the industry can do apart from offering deferred type credit schemes, even though I accept these are not perfect. Is it, I ask, really down to the HIP industry to address this issue when as said above we have little influence ( apart from our individual right to vote) on the formulation of policy on economic factors such as unemployment, lack of high LTV credit, and lack of affordable housing.
And why pick on the HIP industry. Where do solicitors and estate agents feature? Surely the same argument applies to these professionals. Estate agents do not have to charge for the HIP, they could absorb the cost as part of their commission.
I agree however that the buyer may not have any interest in the HIP other than to pass it onto his or her solicitor once an offer on property is accepted. But hey what is new? A buyer has never been interested in the legal process – the only concern is that the transaction proceeds as quickly as possible. However the fact the buyer may not read or have interest in the HIP should not distract from the benefit the HIP offers to the buyer.
The writer considers that the lack of social responsibility as highlighted above also features within the constructive efforts of the Industry to come up with ways to improve the HIP accusing the industry of not thinking through the social consequences of their proposals. He writes:
‘Yet still the reformers remain blind to the HIP industry’s social responsibility in its proposals. As far as I can tell, they fail to recognize that markets do, shock, crash; and that people like my friend do actually, shock, and exist, because of these events.
And so consequently they fail to “stress-test” the implications – both financial and social – on house-prices, shock, actually dropping significantly’.
This is all well and good and makes good reading but the reality of the situation is as I say very different. The HIP industry is only a very small clog in the wheel. There are so many other far larger and more influential stake holders all with vested interest that would have to play a part in any reform. In addition to this we have the wider economic issues as set out above. Given all of this how on earth can one expect the HIP industry to carry out effective ‘stress tests’? The ‘housing crash’ remember, came about through decisions made by governments around the world despite carrying out before implementing such policy, sophisticated impact assessments! All the industry can do is to make suggestions and continue to engage with other stakeholders to ensure both economic and social issues are taken into account. It is incredulous to believe that the industry should be left with sole responsibility for everything that remains wrong about the hone selling and buying process and the housing market generally.
Not surprisingly the writer concludes his rant about how he sees HIP suppliers turning their attention when speaking about reform to the energy assessor and green issues. He comments:
‘In its desperation for strength in numbers, some voices within the HIP industry have even recently attempted to ring-fence DEAs into its camp, using the ploy of “green-washing” HIPs, and arguing that any abolition would not only be dangerous to the livelihoods of energy assessors (appealing to self-interest), but also the environment (politicians eyeing-up the green vote)’.
In writing above I have in making reference to the ‘HIP Industry’ viewed and continue to view energy assessors as part and parcel of those operating within it. The EPC is integral to the HIP and will continue to be in the future – they come from the same stable of thinking i.e. the early delivery of information and documents that will help a prospective buyer acquire knowledge of a property before committing to the transaction. I accept that there could be more done to improve the format in which this information is conveyed but for it to be suggested the HIP and the EPC should be viewed separately is nonsensical.
Energy assessors have always featured largely within the industry and unless they stand united with the HIP suppliers there is a real risk of the industry becoming fragmented and vulnerable. It is my belief that many energy assessors recognise that if the HIP goes it will not be long before the EPC finds itself consumed by large energy retailers and the like.
Furthermore, it can be shown with certainty that the HIP has provided an excellent and effective vehicle for the delivery of the EPC and with it the consequential green benefits. Again why should we be guilty of making these points and in so doing trying as best we can do preserve the jobs of all those working in the industry. Perhaps this is where the industry is delivering its social responsibility, making sure we and thousands of others do not land up like the ‘friend’ of the writer.
So in conclusion I believe the writer is completely off beam to suggest the removal of the HIP is the key to improving social mobility. Instead of knocking the industry that has probably provided the writer with a reasonable income over the past year or so, his efforts would be better used pressing both present and future governments to look at the introduction of more affordable housing and schemes to make it easier for those less fortunate to move.
‘He is now a prisoner in his own home, on the dole, and further hemmed-in by a lack of money to pay for a HIP’
How daft to blame the cost of the HIP and EPC for this situation. To begin with we all know that a HIP, including an EPC can be picked up for between £180 and £200. A large sum I agree, for some. However, is the cost of this really the determining factor when a home owner is thinking of selling? Surely jobs security, the availability of credit and the price of the property generally, are far more important?
Furthermore, if the writer’s friend has lost his job, and is looking to sale, yes he will have to find the money to pay for the HIP, but this is not the only cost he will have to meet as he will also need to instruct a solicitor to handle the sale. Before the HIP was introduced many solicitors would ask a seller at the point of instruction for a payment of account of between £150 and £200 to cover the cost of the searches. The ‘friend’ would still have needed therefore, with or without the cost of the HIP, to find the money to meet this requirement.
Social mobility is more to with the availability of more affordable homes and or a move away from our obsession in this country on home ownership. We should perhaps look to the continent where far more people rent and are therefore able to move around without the hang up of sale associated cost.
The writer then turns his attention to the ‘tit for tat’ exchanges between the HIP proponents and those who support Mr. Shapps with his obsessive desire to rid society of the HIP. In particular his focuses on people like myself who he says often attempt to defend the indefensible.
He points out:
‘One survey metric the industry is unable to fight, but still insists on trying to disprove, is the lack of interest in HIPs from buyers. ..................... HIPs are for solicitors; punters don’t want to wade through 60-odd pages of legalese, for every property they visit’.
He adds:
‘One side says something and the other feels compelled to say the opposite, within days. It’s like a childish game of tennis; except the only people playing are the one’s with most to win or lose – they certainly don’t include folks like my friend, or the lowly DEA trapped in the middle of this mess’.
In response why should I and others be made to feel guilty for wishing to correct ant-HIP propaganda? There is so much misinformation out there and add to this political spin it is not surprising that the consumer is confused and holds a jaundiced view of the HIP. I make no apology for wishing to educate and speaking out on issues which I firmly believe in.
It is also untrue to suggest that suppliers of HIPs have not time for energy assessors or those in financial difficulties. There are many suppliers out there who value the contribution of the energy assessor and who do all they can to ensure the energy assessor is not overlooked! Remember also there are a vast number of energy assessors who double up as HIP suppliers and have used the HIP to help maximize their return on the delivery of the EPC.
As for doing more to help those who cannot afford to move I am not sure what more the industry can do apart from offering deferred type credit schemes, even though I accept these are not perfect. Is it, I ask, really down to the HIP industry to address this issue when as said above we have little influence ( apart from our individual right to vote) on the formulation of policy on economic factors such as unemployment, lack of high LTV credit, and lack of affordable housing.
And why pick on the HIP industry. Where do solicitors and estate agents feature? Surely the same argument applies to these professionals. Estate agents do not have to charge for the HIP, they could absorb the cost as part of their commission.
I agree however that the buyer may not have any interest in the HIP other than to pass it onto his or her solicitor once an offer on property is accepted. But hey what is new? A buyer has never been interested in the legal process – the only concern is that the transaction proceeds as quickly as possible. However the fact the buyer may not read or have interest in the HIP should not distract from the benefit the HIP offers to the buyer.
The writer considers that the lack of social responsibility as highlighted above also features within the constructive efforts of the Industry to come up with ways to improve the HIP accusing the industry of not thinking through the social consequences of their proposals. He writes:
‘Yet still the reformers remain blind to the HIP industry’s social responsibility in its proposals. As far as I can tell, they fail to recognize that markets do, shock, crash; and that people like my friend do actually, shock, and exist, because of these events.
And so consequently they fail to “stress-test” the implications – both financial and social – on house-prices, shock, actually dropping significantly’.
This is all well and good and makes good reading but the reality of the situation is as I say very different. The HIP industry is only a very small clog in the wheel. There are so many other far larger and more influential stake holders all with vested interest that would have to play a part in any reform. In addition to this we have the wider economic issues as set out above. Given all of this how on earth can one expect the HIP industry to carry out effective ‘stress tests’? The ‘housing crash’ remember, came about through decisions made by governments around the world despite carrying out before implementing such policy, sophisticated impact assessments! All the industry can do is to make suggestions and continue to engage with other stakeholders to ensure both economic and social issues are taken into account. It is incredulous to believe that the industry should be left with sole responsibility for everything that remains wrong about the hone selling and buying process and the housing market generally.
Not surprisingly the writer concludes his rant about how he sees HIP suppliers turning their attention when speaking about reform to the energy assessor and green issues. He comments:
‘In its desperation for strength in numbers, some voices within the HIP industry have even recently attempted to ring-fence DEAs into its camp, using the ploy of “green-washing” HIPs, and arguing that any abolition would not only be dangerous to the livelihoods of energy assessors (appealing to self-interest), but also the environment (politicians eyeing-up the green vote)’.
In writing above I have in making reference to the ‘HIP Industry’ viewed and continue to view energy assessors as part and parcel of those operating within it. The EPC is integral to the HIP and will continue to be in the future – they come from the same stable of thinking i.e. the early delivery of information and documents that will help a prospective buyer acquire knowledge of a property before committing to the transaction. I accept that there could be more done to improve the format in which this information is conveyed but for it to be suggested the HIP and the EPC should be viewed separately is nonsensical.
Energy assessors have always featured largely within the industry and unless they stand united with the HIP suppliers there is a real risk of the industry becoming fragmented and vulnerable. It is my belief that many energy assessors recognise that if the HIP goes it will not be long before the EPC finds itself consumed by large energy retailers and the like.
Furthermore, it can be shown with certainty that the HIP has provided an excellent and effective vehicle for the delivery of the EPC and with it the consequential green benefits. Again why should we be guilty of making these points and in so doing trying as best we can do preserve the jobs of all those working in the industry. Perhaps this is where the industry is delivering its social responsibility, making sure we and thousands of others do not land up like the ‘friend’ of the writer.
So in conclusion I believe the writer is completely off beam to suggest the removal of the HIP is the key to improving social mobility. Instead of knocking the industry that has probably provided the writer with a reasonable income over the past year or so, his efforts would be better used pressing both present and future governments to look at the introduction of more affordable housing and schemes to make it easier for those less fortunate to move.
Friday 15 January 2010
Government Latest on Home Inspectors and Home Condition Report
Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat Housing Spokesperson, has been busy over the past week or so asking parliamentary questions of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The answers received do not reveal very much new, though do highlight a lack of monitoring on the impact of EPCs as well as deficiencies on the tracking of issues relating to Home Inspectors.
In response to the question about the effect on the level of energy efficiency of buildings John Healey revealed the absence of data and was also unable to give figures on the level of non compliance within the commercial and domestic sectors.
There then followed questions relating to the plight of the Home Inspector. Ms Teather asked John Healey to provide information on the number of Home Inspectors who have paid for training, whether any assessment of job opportunities for Home Inspectors exists, how many Home Condition Reports have been commissioned, and whether any assessment has been made of the voluntary roll out of the HCR.
Mr Healey’s response was far from enlightening:
‘The home condition report (HCR) remains authorised for inclusion in the home information pack (HIP) on a voluntary basis and certificated home inspectors are accredited to produce domestic energy performance certificates (EPCs) which are a required component of the home information pack. No such assessment of the job opportunities of home inspectors has been made.
Communities and Local Government does not hold information on the number of people who have paid fees to train as home inspectors, or the number of people who have undertaken or are undertaking such training. The most recent figure supplied to us by the national EPC and HCR register operator, shows that there are 971 certificated home inspectors as of 4 January 2010. This figure may include duplicate numbers of those home inspectors who have registered with more than one certification scheme.
Although since the decision in July 2006 to make the HCR an authorised rather than required document, we continued to promote the benefits of including an HCR within a HIP. However, take-up has been disappointing with only 327 reports lodged on the central register since 1 August 2007 and it is clear that the product as it stands is not seen as the right one either by consumers or industry.
We still believe that consumers should be better informed about any property they are looking to buy before making what is undoubtedly one of the biggest purchases of their lives and that they want information about the condition of homes before they commit to buying them. As a result Margaret Beckett established the Working Group on condition information in the home buying and selling process to explore options for ensuring consumers receive appropriate information about a property's condition before they commit to buy, by building on existing products such as the HCR, and creating opportunities for all practitioners including home inspectors’.
Regrettably there is no indication of probable publication date of the Working Group’s findings, though given it existence there may perhaps be a glimmer of hope for the beleaguered Home Inspector.
In response to the question about the effect on the level of energy efficiency of buildings John Healey revealed the absence of data and was also unable to give figures on the level of non compliance within the commercial and domestic sectors.
There then followed questions relating to the plight of the Home Inspector. Ms Teather asked John Healey to provide information on the number of Home Inspectors who have paid for training, whether any assessment of job opportunities for Home Inspectors exists, how many Home Condition Reports have been commissioned, and whether any assessment has been made of the voluntary roll out of the HCR.
Mr Healey’s response was far from enlightening:
‘The home condition report (HCR) remains authorised for inclusion in the home information pack (HIP) on a voluntary basis and certificated home inspectors are accredited to produce domestic energy performance certificates (EPCs) which are a required component of the home information pack. No such assessment of the job opportunities of home inspectors has been made.
Communities and Local Government does not hold information on the number of people who have paid fees to train as home inspectors, or the number of people who have undertaken or are undertaking such training. The most recent figure supplied to us by the national EPC and HCR register operator, shows that there are 971 certificated home inspectors as of 4 January 2010. This figure may include duplicate numbers of those home inspectors who have registered with more than one certification scheme.
Although since the decision in July 2006 to make the HCR an authorised rather than required document, we continued to promote the benefits of including an HCR within a HIP. However, take-up has been disappointing with only 327 reports lodged on the central register since 1 August 2007 and it is clear that the product as it stands is not seen as the right one either by consumers or industry.
We still believe that consumers should be better informed about any property they are looking to buy before making what is undoubtedly one of the biggest purchases of their lives and that they want information about the condition of homes before they commit to buying them. As a result Margaret Beckett established the Working Group on condition information in the home buying and selling process to explore options for ensuring consumers receive appropriate information about a property's condition before they commit to buy, by building on existing products such as the HCR, and creating opportunities for all practitioners including home inspectors’.
Regrettably there is no indication of probable publication date of the Working Group’s findings, though given it existence there may perhaps be a glimmer of hope for the beleaguered Home Inspector.
Where next for HIPs?
Source: Mortgage Finance Gazette: James Sherwood-Rogers of Quest
Home Information Packs have had a rocky ride since they were first envisaged and have created much debate within the industry.
Home Information Packs have had a rocky ride since they were first envisaged and have created much debate within the industry.
They say thirteen is an unlucky number, and it would appear that this may well be the case for Home Information Packs (HIPs). Thirteen years after the initial concept was devised, the Conservative party is making very clear and vocal its plans to eradicate HIPs if the party are successful at the polls. Whether this is to improve the homebuying process or just win votes, the HIPs industry, it is fair to say, is in turmoil.
What happened?
New Labour government first introduced the concept of HIPs back in 1997 where it was agreed as a new way of improving the homebuying and selling process across England and Wales. It was, after all, due an overhaul as prior to this new reform, no major updates had been made to the process of buying homes since 1925, and reports showed that consumers were losing £1 million per day, as a result of failed property transactions.
After ten years of formulating the new initiative; working with the industry, making revisions, setting up accreditation schemes, training domestic energy assessors (DEAs), running pilots and making yet further revisions, HIPs finally came in to force in August 2007.
Unfortunately, this coincided with the start of the market decline and as such, HIPs are seen by many consumers as one of the contributing factors towards why we are where we are today with the current property sector and house prices.
Of course, we know there are many more serious reasons for the crash in the property market, however, it is certainly true that HIPs have been dogged by a raft of negative press since the legislation was passed.
Only three years into the scheme coming into force and change is already on the horizon. With a general election imminent, the Conservatives are pledging that should they come to power, HIPs will be one of the first things they will look to scrap.
Grant Shapps, shadow housing minister for the Conservatives was only recently quoted in The Times newspaper saying that HIPs would be scrapped, “in a matter of weeks” by using emergency powers, although the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) would not realise the same fate.
In fact, Shapps has some major plans in place to use EPCs as a launch-pad to make consumers “green-up” their homes. In a climate change speech that was given in November, he was quoted as saying that EPCs would “be a catalyst for an environmental revolution” through the Conservative’s planned ‘Green Deal’ initiative, which would see each household in the country benefit from a £6,500 allowance towards energy improvements.
So, what’s next?
Although there are no guarantees that the Conservative party will be successful at the general election, it is seen by many as the most likely outcome at the moment, with a hung parliament a possible second option. With no one giving Labour much credence, it makes clear sense to take stock of what options are available for government and industry
A panel of experts at the Land Data Great Housing Market Debate in 2009, which included the director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, the chief economics correspondent at the BBC and the group chief executive of Countrywide all unanimously agreed that, “while packs had been poorly implemented they should not be scrapped but instead adapted and improved”.
The Association of Home Information Pack Providers (AHIPP) is also calling for the successful party to build on the progress made to date by modifying and improving the reforms that currently exist, by working hand-in-hand with the industry in order to move to the next stage of the home buying reform. It points out that the last major reform of the homebuying process was in 1925, and that the market needs legislation to push through reforms that are in the interest of the buyer and the seller.
AHIPP recently commissioned an Ipsos MORI poll to identify current consumer opinion of HIPs and it highlighted that people believe that the homebuying process is too slow and more upfront information is desired – potentially even more than is currently provided by HIPs. A majority agreed that homebuyers should be provided with more upfront information about the condition of the property they are buying and over eight out of 10 respondents agreed that the process of buying and selling properties takes too long.
In light of this, there is support for a detailed review of how the legislation could be adapted to ensure relevant information is presented to potential buyers up-front, to make the due-diligence process quick and easy and to support both buyers and sellers through the process.
There are a number of potential options available to government, from producing a ‘light’ version of the HIP, which strips out much of the legal data and provides more consumer-facing documents to support the purchasing process, to a full-on HIP that includes every possible piece of information relevant to a particular property’s location.
Scotland
Many observers are taking a close look at Scotland (see November’s MFG, page 42). The Home Report initiative in Scotland is a prime example of what could be achieved here. Since this was introduced in December 2008, published industry figures and feedback is confirming that, although originally greeted with cynicism, the reports are providing consumers with more transparency by offering critical information on the property in advance.
The Home Report actually only contains three documents compared with seven in freehold HIPs (or more if it’s a pack for a leasehold property). These are a Property Questionnaire that contains information on relevant local data, such as Council Tax banding, parking information, local services and any relevant planning notices; a Single Survey report that gives detailed information about the condition and value of a home; and an Energy Performance Certificate to provide a review of the property's energy efficiency.
In terms of who is responsible for the report’s completion, a chartered surveyor produces the Single Survey and also the energy efficiency report in Scotland, whilst the seller completes the Property Survey. The estate agent then collates this information on behalf of all parties.
In contrast, HIPs in England and Wales have no survey or valuation data and the exclusion of these documents that were initially seen as many in the industry as the ‘core value’ of the packs are what many believe has led to their imminent downfall. However, some people may be sceptical that homebuyers will actually rely on such reports that have been produced by a seller, and will not instead seek to have their own independent reports produced.
Supporters of the Scottish model suggest that it demonstrates that by presenting consumer-facing data that really matters to prospective buyers upfront – the condition, locality information and energy rating of the home - the report is digested by potential purchasers and used as an active tool in helping them make their decision on progressing with the purchase of the home. However, the homebuying process in Scotland is fundamentally different, and therefore it is not clear that the same product would work effectively across the UK.
Exchange Ready Packs
Another potential way forward for HIPs is to take look at the advantages of what is being called Exchange Ready Packs (ERPs). These add further information to the basic HIP in order to ensure a buyer is able to proceed immediately to exchange of contracts once an offer has been accepted as all documentation required by a conveyancer is made available through the pack.
There are pack providers and estate agents already using this method who are finding that it reduces the time between acceptance of offer and the actual exchange of contracts. One supplier claims that as a result of ERPs, the time taken to get to exchange has halved.
The ERP contains five additional items to a standard HIP. A ‘contract for sale’, which is prepared by a lawyer; Seller Property Information Forms that include details about the fixtures and fittings of the property; copies of any planning permissions, building regulations consents and guarantees – all of which are supplied by the seller; additional documents that have been referred to in the Register; and a lawyer’s certificate confirming that the pack is exchange-ready.
AHIPP is calling for ERPs to be made mandatory and that they must be ordered before marketing commences and the EPC would need to be included before the property is actually marketed. All other documents would then need to be included within 28 days of the first day of marketing, and they report that the cost for such reports is comparable to HIPs.
In spring 2009, the shadow housing minister revealed he is not averse to the concept of ERPs and was quoted as saying that, "If an Exchange Ready Pack can be produced because estate agents know it’s best practice and they've got evidence that it speeds up the process, it's obviously a great idea. Why don't estate agents get together and propose Exchange Ready Packs?"
However, this also indicates that there is no desire to legislate for ERPs, but to simply support the market in delivering it if the market demands it.
Simplifying the process
If we continue to explore other potential routes that government could take to ‘reform the reform’, the question is whether the process could be simplified yet further still, whilst continuing to provide consumers with useful data at the beginning of the buying cycle to deliver transparency and still help speed up transactions?
Currently, a domestic energy assessor visits a property in advance of it being marketed to conduct the energy survey in order to generate an Energy Performance Certificate. A chartered surveyor then visits the same property to undertake the valuation and, if instructed by the buyer, a detailed Homebuyers Report.
Some market commentators believe this process could be streamlined so both items are done with one visit to the home, prior to the property being marketed. Following the lead of the Scottish system, the professional could also undertake a Single Survey report to capture the condition of the property.
It is, however, difficult to see a time when a surveyor isn't the arbiter of valuation, although technology and data gathering by DEAs could change the shape of the market. And, although it could save time upfront, it would require a change in legislation as currently the Energy Performance Certificate is paid for by the seller and the valuation is instructed and paid for by the buyer, through its lender. In order for this approach to be considered, it would make sense for this to be one transaction that is handled by the seller of the property.
There are certainly many avenues to explore that must take into consideration the speed of the process, transparency provided to consumers, associated costs and importantly how easy the data is for consumers to digest upfront. Government must work with the industry to determine an approach that works for everyone and delivers the best possible outcome.
Whatever happens over the coming months, I am certain that Home Information Packs will certainly be back in the headlines and creating more attention, conversation and debate. Their existence has stimulated a range of new products that may succeed even when legislation is removed, not least because they now provide a valuable income stream for estate agents.
Whichever political party succeeds at the general election, the homebuying market needs further reform to really deliver the promise of HIPs. Whether that is by taking a step back to move forwards we will have to see. Creating something that meets the interests of the homebuying public but is workable across all stages of the buying and selling process – with lenders, surveyors, estate agents and conveyancers - is tough, and the only thing that is agreed is that HIPs in their current form are not the full answer.
Wednesday 13 January 2010
Personal property searches are more reliable than council searches
The debate of whether official searches should be preferred to personal searches continues to challenge the minds of many of us, particularly as personal searches are now far more widespread than they were prior to the introduction of home information packs. In fact the majority of property searches produced within the home selling and buying process emanate from personal search providers.
Before the changes to the HIP Regulations in April 2009 major differences existed between search reports prepared by councils and those produced by personal search agents. The main difference was that the personal search company could if certain data was not readily available take out insurance to cover any adverse consequences stemming from that missing information.
Since April it is no longer possible to include insurance of this type when producing a search report for inclusion within a HIP. This has meant that for all intent and purposes the HIP pack search is as good as an official search produced by the Council.
Even though both personal and official searches are back by indemnity insurance cover, there is still in certain quarters a stigma associated with personal searches, with many property professionals viewing a personal search as an inferior product.
There is no rhyme nor reason for this view to be held and a from a report released by the Property Code Compliance Board which regulates the personal search companies that subscribe to the Search Code, it seems that quality control issues rest more with official than they do with personal searches.
In October, November and December 2009 the PCCB carried out thorough investigations of its Code Subscribers to check on the standards of personal searches compared with official.
Frank Finch of the PCCB reporting on the findings of this investigation stated:
‘A total of 58 searches, comprising 900 questions were scrutinised, with errors being found in just 3% of answers and none of these related to the substantive allegations that data was either missing or inappropriate data was being used'.
Finch went on to comment on the errors by saying that they:
‘Appear to result from a lack of diligence rather than deliberate attempts to short-circuit the provisions in the Code. This is borne out by the fact that these failings featured in searches conducted by both personal search firms and local authorities in roughly equal measure.’
The fact this investigation shows that over half of all errors or omissions identified in the exercise related to local authority reports, suggests that Official searches are no more reliable than those provided by personal search companies.
Has the time not come for the myth surrounding the personal search to be put to rest and for all regulated searches whether supplied by an agent or the council to be viewed as ‘official’? Your views would be welcomed.
Before the changes to the HIP Regulations in April 2009 major differences existed between search reports prepared by councils and those produced by personal search agents. The main difference was that the personal search company could if certain data was not readily available take out insurance to cover any adverse consequences stemming from that missing information.
Since April it is no longer possible to include insurance of this type when producing a search report for inclusion within a HIP. This has meant that for all intent and purposes the HIP pack search is as good as an official search produced by the Council.
Even though both personal and official searches are back by indemnity insurance cover, there is still in certain quarters a stigma associated with personal searches, with many property professionals viewing a personal search as an inferior product.
There is no rhyme nor reason for this view to be held and a from a report released by the Property Code Compliance Board which regulates the personal search companies that subscribe to the Search Code, it seems that quality control issues rest more with official than they do with personal searches.
In October, November and December 2009 the PCCB carried out thorough investigations of its Code Subscribers to check on the standards of personal searches compared with official.
Frank Finch of the PCCB reporting on the findings of this investigation stated:
‘A total of 58 searches, comprising 900 questions were scrutinised, with errors being found in just 3% of answers and none of these related to the substantive allegations that data was either missing or inappropriate data was being used'.
Finch went on to comment on the errors by saying that they:
‘Appear to result from a lack of diligence rather than deliberate attempts to short-circuit the provisions in the Code. This is borne out by the fact that these failings featured in searches conducted by both personal search firms and local authorities in roughly equal measure.’
The fact this investigation shows that over half of all errors or omissions identified in the exercise related to local authority reports, suggests that Official searches are no more reliable than those provided by personal search companies.
Has the time not come for the myth surrounding the personal search to be put to rest and for all regulated searches whether supplied by an agent or the council to be viewed as ‘official’? Your views would be welcomed.
Estate Agent supports legal front loading on property sales
How spooky – within weeks of releasing their draft proposal for Reform - New Year, New Start, the Hip Reform Group (http://bit.ly/5PTgxw) , seem to have found a chain of estate agents who are thinking along the same lines.
In an article that appeared today in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline McGhie – ‘Selling houses: 10 ways to open doors to buyers’ (http://bit.ly/8V6sNp) we see a spokesmen for the prestige estate agency chain, Savills encouraging sellers to engage with solicitors at the point of marketing:
“Speak to your solicitor well in advance,” says Justin Marking of Savills. “My advice would be to complete a standard preliminary inquiries form before marketing. That way, key information can be with their solicitors within 24 hours of an offer being accepted. Also, get your lawyer to prepare a draft contract before a buyer is found, so you are in a position to exchange within 10 days.”
Good advice Mr. Marking! Perhaps we can call upon you and other like minded agents to make representation to Grant Shapps on how he has before him with the HIP a ready made and effective vehicle for bringing about well overdue reform to the selling and buying process.
In an article that appeared today in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline McGhie – ‘Selling houses: 10 ways to open doors to buyers’ (http://bit.ly/8V6sNp) we see a spokesmen for the prestige estate agency chain, Savills encouraging sellers to engage with solicitors at the point of marketing:
“Speak to your solicitor well in advance,” says Justin Marking of Savills. “My advice would be to complete a standard preliminary inquiries form before marketing. That way, key information can be with their solicitors within 24 hours of an offer being accepted. Also, get your lawyer to prepare a draft contract before a buyer is found, so you are in a position to exchange within 10 days.”
Good advice Mr. Marking! Perhaps we can call upon you and other like minded agents to make representation to Grant Shapps on how he has before him with the HIP a ready made and effective vehicle for bringing about well overdue reform to the selling and buying process.
HIP Overshadowed by Fear of Unemployment and Lack of Credit
Factors affecting the supply and price of housing stock seem at to be the focus of much attention at a time when many experts are making predictions about what is likely to happen to the property market in 2010.
In a recent article that appeared on lovemney.com a team of experts were invited to put forward their views on how they see house prices panning out over the next 12 months
Interestingly, only one of the invited experts, Mr Peter Bolton King, of the National Association of Estate Agents, chose the opportunity to make mention of the home information pack. Commenting on factors influencing house prices he could not resist the temptation to knock the HIP by saying:
‘…..recent price rises have been driven by demand outstripping supply in some parts of the market. Supply will remain stable in the run up to the general election. However, if more properties come onto the market - which may happen particularly if Home Information Packs are scrapped - prices are forecast to flatten, and in some cases, fall’.
Bolton King purportedly speaking on behalf of the estate agency community is a known opponent of the HIP despite the fact that many of his members are still out there raising large sums of revenue on the back of HIP sales, and using the HIP to tie un-expecting consumers into expensive retainers.
It would be refreshing to hear the NAEA coming forward with their own proposal for reform rather than attacking without foundation every move made that has any mention of making the home buying and selling process quicker and more transparent.
Fortunately not all agents follow the NAEA line of thinking.
It is also reassuring that the real experts in this field were far more tuned in and picked up on the true economic factors that they consider are, and will continue in 2010 to affect supply and pricing.
Here is a sample of the comments:
‘Ernst & Young ITEM Club, an economic forecasting company, predicts a dip in the first half of 2010. Hetal Mehta, Senior Economic Advisor at ITEM says the recent surge in house prices is a 'false dawn', supported by cash buyers and the shortage in property. Again, prices are expected to fall due to a dearth in available mortgage funds and tight lending criteria.’
‘The Halifax predicts prices will be flat in 2010.The mortgage lender isn't convinced the upward trend in 2009 will be repeated in 2010. Although lower rate mortgages and recent improvements in the labour market have fuelled prices in the short-term, the lender is unable to see a sustained recovery this year unless the economy strengthens, and the supply of properties for sale increases significantly.
‘Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) predicts prices will rise between 1% and 2% in 2010. Simon Rubinsohn, Chief Economist at RICS forecasts the shortage in supply will continue with stocks on surveyor's books remaining at historical lows. This could fuel further house price gains in the early part of the year. The imbalance between supply and demand is expected to narrow, resulting in a rise in the number of property transactions as stock gradually increases. Transactions are forecast to step up from a monthly average of 55,000 or 60,000 to 70,000.On the downside, first time buyers will face continued difficulty in finding mortgage finance unless assisted by parents. While cautious lending, a flat labour market and uncertainty in the economy will result in low house price growth.’
Lovemoney.com also courted the views of the consumer. Their survey showed that the consumer expected prices to increase by 3 %. They gave the reason for this as follows:
‘Confidence is rising among bullish consumers following a stabilisation of house prices during the latter part of 2009. However, rising unemployment is expected to temper stronger growth in 2010, while the ability of borrowers to raise a sufficient deposit is also seen as significant barrier’.
In conclusion there is little certainty amongst the views expressed on expected price increases/decreases, though the reasons for the stock shortage and prices fluctuation are far clearer. The fear of unemployment and lack of high LTV mortgages are clearly the only influential factors. The HIP factor pales into insignificance when compared to these major economic factors.
In a recent article that appeared on lovemney.com a team of experts were invited to put forward their views on how they see house prices panning out over the next 12 months
Interestingly, only one of the invited experts, Mr Peter Bolton King, of the National Association of Estate Agents, chose the opportunity to make mention of the home information pack. Commenting on factors influencing house prices he could not resist the temptation to knock the HIP by saying:
‘…..recent price rises have been driven by demand outstripping supply in some parts of the market. Supply will remain stable in the run up to the general election. However, if more properties come onto the market - which may happen particularly if Home Information Packs are scrapped - prices are forecast to flatten, and in some cases, fall’.
Bolton King purportedly speaking on behalf of the estate agency community is a known opponent of the HIP despite the fact that many of his members are still out there raising large sums of revenue on the back of HIP sales, and using the HIP to tie un-expecting consumers into expensive retainers.
It would be refreshing to hear the NAEA coming forward with their own proposal for reform rather than attacking without foundation every move made that has any mention of making the home buying and selling process quicker and more transparent.
Fortunately not all agents follow the NAEA line of thinking.
It is also reassuring that the real experts in this field were far more tuned in and picked up on the true economic factors that they consider are, and will continue in 2010 to affect supply and pricing.
Here is a sample of the comments:
‘Ernst & Young ITEM Club, an economic forecasting company, predicts a dip in the first half of 2010. Hetal Mehta, Senior Economic Advisor at ITEM says the recent surge in house prices is a 'false dawn', supported by cash buyers and the shortage in property. Again, prices are expected to fall due to a dearth in available mortgage funds and tight lending criteria.’
‘The Halifax predicts prices will be flat in 2010.The mortgage lender isn't convinced the upward trend in 2009 will be repeated in 2010. Although lower rate mortgages and recent improvements in the labour market have fuelled prices in the short-term, the lender is unable to see a sustained recovery this year unless the economy strengthens, and the supply of properties for sale increases significantly.
‘Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) predicts prices will rise between 1% and 2% in 2010. Simon Rubinsohn, Chief Economist at RICS forecasts the shortage in supply will continue with stocks on surveyor's books remaining at historical lows. This could fuel further house price gains in the early part of the year. The imbalance between supply and demand is expected to narrow, resulting in a rise in the number of property transactions as stock gradually increases. Transactions are forecast to step up from a monthly average of 55,000 or 60,000 to 70,000.On the downside, first time buyers will face continued difficulty in finding mortgage finance unless assisted by parents. While cautious lending, a flat labour market and uncertainty in the economy will result in low house price growth.’
Lovemoney.com also courted the views of the consumer. Their survey showed that the consumer expected prices to increase by 3 %. They gave the reason for this as follows:
‘Confidence is rising among bullish consumers following a stabilisation of house prices during the latter part of 2009. However, rising unemployment is expected to temper stronger growth in 2010, while the ability of borrowers to raise a sufficient deposit is also seen as significant barrier’.
In conclusion there is little certainty amongst the views expressed on expected price increases/decreases, though the reasons for the stock shortage and prices fluctuation are far clearer. The fear of unemployment and lack of high LTV mortgages are clearly the only influential factors. The HIP factor pales into insignificance when compared to these major economic factors.
Tuesday 12 January 2010
General Election date fixed for May 6th
Not sure if this has reached the masses but it seems from a slip made by Chris Bryant, the Europe Minister, speaking to diplomats in London, the general election will be held on May 6th, the same day as the local elections.
The report on this published today reads:
‘Mr Bryant was discussing Britain’s relations with Latin America at Canning House, a diplomatic think-tank, with a group of envoys and academics.
Referring to recent tensions between Britain and countries including Venezuala, Mr Bryant said: “I hope that by the time of the general election on May 6, relations will have improved.”
Ministers have been ordered by No 10 not to discuss the date of the next election, to avoid helping the Conservatives with their planning.
Some Labour strategists have been urging an early election in March, and Mr Brown has refused to commit himself to any date. The election must be held by June 3 at the latest.
This not the first time Mr Bryant has revealed sensitive Government information ahead of time. In October, he used Twitter, the micro-blogging website, to disclose that he had been appointed to the Europe job at the Foreign Office, several hours before it was announced by Downing Street.
The Foreign Office confirmed that Mr Bryant had used the May 6 date in the briefing. A spokesman said the minister had also said that he did not actually know when Mr Brown would call the poll’.
Morning – inadvertent admission from the Europe Minister that the election is planned for May 6
Richard
Chris Bryant: general election will be May 6
Chris Bryant, the Europe Minister, has risked the anger of Downing Street by blurting out the date of the general election.
James Kirkup and Heidi Blake
Published: 10:00PM GMT 11 Jan 2010
Speaking to diplomats in London, Mr Bryant appeared to confirm that the poll will be held on May 6, on the same day as the local government elections.
Mr Bryant was discussing Britain’s relations with Latin America at Canning House, a diplomatic think-tank, with a group of envoys and academics.
Referring to recent tensions between Britain and countries including Venezuala, Mr Bryant said: “I hope that by the time of the general election on May 6, relations will have improved.”
Ministers have been ordered by No 10 not to discuss the date of the next election, to avoid helping the Conservatives with their planning.
Some Labour strategists have been urging an early election in March, and Mr Brown has refused to commit himself to any date. The election must be held by June 3 at the latest.
This not the first time Mr Bryant has revealed sensitive Government information ahead of time. In October, he used Twitter, the micro-blogging website, to disclose that he had been appointed to the Europe job at the Foreign Office, several hours before it was announced by Downing Street.
The Foreign Office confirmed that Mr Bryant had used the May 6 date in the briefing. A spokesman said the minister had also said that he did not actually know when Mr Brown would call the poll.
The report on this published today reads:
‘Mr Bryant was discussing Britain’s relations with Latin America at Canning House, a diplomatic think-tank, with a group of envoys and academics.
Referring to recent tensions between Britain and countries including Venezuala, Mr Bryant said: “I hope that by the time of the general election on May 6, relations will have improved.”
Ministers have been ordered by No 10 not to discuss the date of the next election, to avoid helping the Conservatives with their planning.
Some Labour strategists have been urging an early election in March, and Mr Brown has refused to commit himself to any date. The election must be held by June 3 at the latest.
This not the first time Mr Bryant has revealed sensitive Government information ahead of time. In October, he used Twitter, the micro-blogging website, to disclose that he had been appointed to the Europe job at the Foreign Office, several hours before it was announced by Downing Street.
The Foreign Office confirmed that Mr Bryant had used the May 6 date in the briefing. A spokesman said the minister had also said that he did not actually know when Mr Brown would call the poll’.
Morning – inadvertent admission from the Europe Minister that the election is planned for May 6
Richard
Chris Bryant: general election will be May 6
Chris Bryant, the Europe Minister, has risked the anger of Downing Street by blurting out the date of the general election.
James Kirkup and Heidi Blake
Published: 10:00PM GMT 11 Jan 2010
Speaking to diplomats in London, Mr Bryant appeared to confirm that the poll will be held on May 6, on the same day as the local government elections.
Mr Bryant was discussing Britain’s relations with Latin America at Canning House, a diplomatic think-tank, with a group of envoys and academics.
Referring to recent tensions between Britain and countries including Venezuala, Mr Bryant said: “I hope that by the time of the general election on May 6, relations will have improved.”
Ministers have been ordered by No 10 not to discuss the date of the next election, to avoid helping the Conservatives with their planning.
Some Labour strategists have been urging an early election in March, and Mr Brown has refused to commit himself to any date. The election must be held by June 3 at the latest.
This not the first time Mr Bryant has revealed sensitive Government information ahead of time. In October, he used Twitter, the micro-blogging website, to disclose that he had been appointed to the Europe job at the Foreign Office, several hours before it was announced by Downing Street.
The Foreign Office confirmed that Mr Bryant had used the May 6 date in the briefing. A spokesman said the minister had also said that he did not actually know when Mr Brown would call the poll.
Cheap Home Information Packs Fast Service
Source: Troy's orderhouseplans.com/blogs
For the full blog please visit: http://bit.ly/6S6dpm
The Home Information Pack caused quite a stir when it was first introduced in 2004. Many people sensed that it could cripple the property marketplace as people would have to go over an extra hurdle to be able to sell their house. However, despite this contention the Home Information Pack has been widely regarded as a success story, since it has freed up a great deal of time in the buying and selling process, and improved the data available to future buyers. You no longer have to worry, for example, about any scares late on in the process when you find out the home you so needed to buy was actually built on a dump!
Ever since Home Information Packs have been introduced, buyers have been protected much more and sellers now have to be completely open about any issues that the property has. Even though the Home Information Pack can take a while to be put together, once you have done it you can show it to anyone who is considering your property, and it can also save you a great deal of time trying to explain everything there is to know about it.
The Home Information Pack is essentially a group of documents which explain different aspects of the house, such as energy performance or the age of the property. There is a great deal of information which has to be presented and it is for this reason that many people are delaying selling their home, since they are concerned over how long it will take them to assemble all this information. However, there are now firms which can handle the whole process for you, saving you a great deal of time and hassle. You can have a home information pack within a matter of days for a small fee, allowing you to concentrate on the more important aspects of the selling process. In the time it would have taken you to put together a HIP, you could be making modifications to the house so as to increase its value in the eyes of the estate agents and prospective buyers.
The best way to get a cheap Home Information Pack is to look online, all you have to do is fill out a short form and within a matter of seconds you will know exactly how much you will have to pay for the firm to put together the home information pack for you. It’s as simple as that and can save you a huge amount of time and money!
The Home Information Pack caused quite a stir when it was first introduced in 2004. Many people sensed that it could cripple the property marketplace as people would have to go over an extra hurdle to be able to sell their house. However, despite this contention the Home Information Pack has been widely regarded as a success story, since it has freed up a great deal of time in the buying and selling process, and improved the data available to future buyers. You no longer have to worry, for example, about any scares late on in the process when you find out the home you so needed to buy was actually built on a dump!
Ever since Home Information Packs have been introduced, buyers have been protected much more and sellers now have to be completely open about any issues that the property has. Even though the Home Information Pack can take a while to be put together, once you have done it you can show it to anyone who is considering your property, and it can also save you a great deal of time trying to explain everything there is to know about it.
The Home Information Pack is essentially a group of documents which explain different aspects of the house, such as energy performance or the age of the property. There is a great deal of information which has to be presented and it is for this reason that many people are delaying selling their home, since they are concerned over how long it will take them to assemble all this information. However, there are now firms which can handle the whole process for you, saving you a great deal of time and hassle. You can have a home information pack within a matter of days for a small fee, allowing you to concentrate on the more important aspects of the selling process. In the time it would have taken you to put together a HIP, you could be making modifications to the house so as to increase its value in the eyes of the estate agents and prospective buyers.
The best way to get a cheap Home Information Pack is to look online, all you have to do is fill out a short form and within a matter of seconds you will know exactly how much you will have to pay for the firm to put together the home information pack for you. It’s as simple as that and can save you a huge amount of time and money!
Monday 11 January 2010
Agents say Home Information Packs are beginning to work
The Independent on Sunday carried an article (http://bit.ly/6dRHsA) on personal finance in which there was some commentary by the journalist concerning the Home Information Pack.
The piece caught my attention through its reference to some feedback from estate agents. Julian Knights, the journalist, whose view he notes, until receiving this feedback, was that the HIP was not of much value, wrote:
‘I had my views challenged last week by – of all people – estate agents. At HIPs' introduction, estate agents would look to the heavens and bemoan bureaucracy, but of late many have changed their tune. It seems the expense of a HIP (£300-£400), which falls on the seller, is deterring those who just want to test the water. One agent told me that the number of sales falling through had halved. It's not how HIPs were supposed to work – the idea was that they would speed sales up – but at least they are having a partly positive impact, although they could still do with a full structural survey being made mandatory pronto’
How refreshing to see someone put into print something which HIP supporters have been arguing without acknowledgement for some years now. Surely the fact that over 1 million pounds per day, it is estimated, is saved through reducing failed sale transactions is evidence per se of the benefit of retaining and improving the home information pack. Hopefully the likes of Grant Shapps and other HIP doubters will start to think more about the positives of the HIP and begin calling, not for abolition, but rather review.
The piece caught my attention through its reference to some feedback from estate agents. Julian Knights, the journalist, whose view he notes, until receiving this feedback, was that the HIP was not of much value, wrote:
‘I had my views challenged last week by – of all people – estate agents. At HIPs' introduction, estate agents would look to the heavens and bemoan bureaucracy, but of late many have changed their tune. It seems the expense of a HIP (£300-£400), which falls on the seller, is deterring those who just want to test the water. One agent told me that the number of sales falling through had halved. It's not how HIPs were supposed to work – the idea was that they would speed sales up – but at least they are having a partly positive impact, although they could still do with a full structural survey being made mandatory pronto’
How refreshing to see someone put into print something which HIP supporters have been arguing without acknowledgement for some years now. Surely the fact that over 1 million pounds per day, it is estimated, is saved through reducing failed sale transactions is evidence per se of the benefit of retaining and improving the home information pack. Hopefully the likes of Grant Shapps and other HIP doubters will start to think more about the positives of the HIP and begin calling, not for abolition, but rather review.
Lawyer Accuses Pack Providers of 'Hijacking' the HIP
The HIP Reform Group’ draft proposal for Reform – ‘New Year, New Start’ (CLICK HERE), has it is pleasing to report, prompted positive comment and support.
The proposal that advocates the early engagement and instruction of an ‘Advisor’ and for information and documents to be available for delivery to the buyer within 28 days of the first day of marketing, has received widespread coverage, and apart from some expected negative commentary, mainly from anonymous sources, the idea seems to be hitting the right buttons.
One response that is perhaps worthy of particular note is from a conveyancer who took the time to write into the solicitors’ periodical – The Law Society Gazette (CLICK HERE).
The contributor beginning with a reference to Grant Shapps intention to abolish home information packs opened his letter by saying:
‘……….we must encourage the seller to instruct solicitors early in the selling process, which is still not happening despite the good intentions behind the HIP. Ideally the solicitor needs to get on with the ‘completion-ready’ pack before a buyer is found'.
He added:
‘We need to educate the public to understand the process and to instruct lawyers when the house goes on the market. We know of course that sellers are reluctant to incur costs before a buyer is found, so it will be an uphill struggle to change attitudes’
There are all good points and all very much in line with the theme of the HRG proposal. It is, as most supporters of the HIP will tell you, important to promote full and early disclosure of information and documents, as well as greater transparency for the consumer. The ‘smoke and mirrors’ surrounding the home selling and buying process serves no purpose, other than self interest, and must be removed.
The Property Information Questionnaire introduced back in April 2009 was a step in the right direction that clearly encourages the seller to be more involved in the process and to ask questions about procedure that were perhaps not asked too frequently beforehand.
Many consumers still find it difficult to ask their lawyer questions, some fearing it will add to the cost, whilst others find their lawyer unapproachable or too busy. Many lawyers run large caseloads in an effort to make their conveyancing practices profitable, and therefore do not have the time to engage with their clients as much as they would like.
Energy Assessors often say they are asked about the selling and buying process and to explain the purpose of the home information pack. Once explained and with a better understanding the seller acknowledges the benefit of delivery of upfront information and goes away feeling more involved.
Back to the letter and the part where the correspondent accuses pack providers and other involved in the industry of ‘hijacking’ the HIP. He claims:
‘HIPs were certainly hijacked by interested parties. These people were not lawyers and, as we now know, HIPs were introduced with little regard for the views of the legal profession. Sadly the product fails to serve anyone in the conveyancing process other than those who hijacked it. Only the energy certificate should be required at the marketing stage, although even that is of little value’.
Sorry, but this makes little sense. The legal profession was, and remains, better placed than most to adopt and run with the home information pack and use it as what has clearly been shown, by many other lawyers, to be a powerful and effective marketing tool.
Apart from the EPC, the HIP comprises of legal documents and information. Who better to deliver this than a lawyer!
Many lawyers like myself toured the Country before and after the introduction of the HIP, speaking to large groups of lawyers and stressing the importance of embracing the HIP and making it the number one priority in future business planning.
Did they listen? No they did not, well the majority did not, dismissing the HIP at the time as a requirement that would never work, and generally as an unwelcomed change.
Those who did listen have despite the recession done very well and have preserved and increased their conveyancing caseloads.
One of the main problems was the failure of the Law Society to get behind the HIP and to encourage solicitors across the country to seize the opportunity. Unfortunately the Law Society is not the quickest body on the block and is often more influenced and driven by politics than its membership.
In its defence, and for me to defend the Law Society it a rare occurrence, there is it seems quite a large amount of apathy within the legal profession. This was illustrated quite vividly in steps taken by the Law Society in the latter part of last year when it issued a Consultation Paper – ‘Improving Residential Conveyancing (CLICK HERE) inviting its members to comment on such proposals as a ‘Completion Pack’.
Bearing in mind there are over 12,000 plus solicitors practicing in this country how many responses do you estimate they received? Was it 6,000, or 3,000? Wrong! There were only 354 responses!
The Results of the Survey was even more surprising with the majority of those responding saying they did not see there was a problem with the process and that there was little that could be done to improve it.
Commenting on the timeliness of the exchange of information it was noted
‘…. around three quarters of respondents (74%) did not believe that this could be improved. Just over two thirds of respondents (69%) strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’ that an agreed protocol would make conveyancing more efficient. Half of respondents disagreed that an electronic infrastructure for document exchange would speed up transactions’.
In conclusion it is hard to see any justification in the accusation of ‘hijacking’. The HIP was introduced in 2004 with the promulgation of the Housing Act. This left plenty of the time for conveyancing lawyers to plan and prepare so as to be first in the queue, and well ahead of the ‘interested parties’. Just because the majority failed to act, invest time and money and take the risks as many others have, it is hardly a basis for valid complaint. There was no hijack, it was more akin to a horse race where the favourite horse failed to leave the starting stalls.
Related Article: A Review of the Law Society’s Consultation Paper: CLICK HERE
The proposal that advocates the early engagement and instruction of an ‘Advisor’ and for information and documents to be available for delivery to the buyer within 28 days of the first day of marketing, has received widespread coverage, and apart from some expected negative commentary, mainly from anonymous sources, the idea seems to be hitting the right buttons.
One response that is perhaps worthy of particular note is from a conveyancer who took the time to write into the solicitors’ periodical – The Law Society Gazette (CLICK HERE).
The contributor beginning with a reference to Grant Shapps intention to abolish home information packs opened his letter by saying:
‘……….we must encourage the seller to instruct solicitors early in the selling process, which is still not happening despite the good intentions behind the HIP. Ideally the solicitor needs to get on with the ‘completion-ready’ pack before a buyer is found'.
He added:
‘We need to educate the public to understand the process and to instruct lawyers when the house goes on the market. We know of course that sellers are reluctant to incur costs before a buyer is found, so it will be an uphill struggle to change attitudes’
There are all good points and all very much in line with the theme of the HRG proposal. It is, as most supporters of the HIP will tell you, important to promote full and early disclosure of information and documents, as well as greater transparency for the consumer. The ‘smoke and mirrors’ surrounding the home selling and buying process serves no purpose, other than self interest, and must be removed.
The Property Information Questionnaire introduced back in April 2009 was a step in the right direction that clearly encourages the seller to be more involved in the process and to ask questions about procedure that were perhaps not asked too frequently beforehand.
Many consumers still find it difficult to ask their lawyer questions, some fearing it will add to the cost, whilst others find their lawyer unapproachable or too busy. Many lawyers run large caseloads in an effort to make their conveyancing practices profitable, and therefore do not have the time to engage with their clients as much as they would like.
Energy Assessors often say they are asked about the selling and buying process and to explain the purpose of the home information pack. Once explained and with a better understanding the seller acknowledges the benefit of delivery of upfront information and goes away feeling more involved.
Back to the letter and the part where the correspondent accuses pack providers and other involved in the industry of ‘hijacking’ the HIP. He claims:
‘HIPs were certainly hijacked by interested parties. These people were not lawyers and, as we now know, HIPs were introduced with little regard for the views of the legal profession. Sadly the product fails to serve anyone in the conveyancing process other than those who hijacked it. Only the energy certificate should be required at the marketing stage, although even that is of little value’.
Sorry, but this makes little sense. The legal profession was, and remains, better placed than most to adopt and run with the home information pack and use it as what has clearly been shown, by many other lawyers, to be a powerful and effective marketing tool.
Apart from the EPC, the HIP comprises of legal documents and information. Who better to deliver this than a lawyer!
Many lawyers like myself toured the Country before and after the introduction of the HIP, speaking to large groups of lawyers and stressing the importance of embracing the HIP and making it the number one priority in future business planning.
Did they listen? No they did not, well the majority did not, dismissing the HIP at the time as a requirement that would never work, and generally as an unwelcomed change.
Those who did listen have despite the recession done very well and have preserved and increased their conveyancing caseloads.
One of the main problems was the failure of the Law Society to get behind the HIP and to encourage solicitors across the country to seize the opportunity. Unfortunately the Law Society is not the quickest body on the block and is often more influenced and driven by politics than its membership.
In its defence, and for me to defend the Law Society it a rare occurrence, there is it seems quite a large amount of apathy within the legal profession. This was illustrated quite vividly in steps taken by the Law Society in the latter part of last year when it issued a Consultation Paper – ‘Improving Residential Conveyancing (CLICK HERE) inviting its members to comment on such proposals as a ‘Completion Pack’.
Bearing in mind there are over 12,000 plus solicitors practicing in this country how many responses do you estimate they received? Was it 6,000, or 3,000? Wrong! There were only 354 responses!
The Results of the Survey was even more surprising with the majority of those responding saying they did not see there was a problem with the process and that there was little that could be done to improve it.
Commenting on the timeliness of the exchange of information it was noted
‘…. around three quarters of respondents (74%) did not believe that this could be improved. Just over two thirds of respondents (69%) strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’ that an agreed protocol would make conveyancing more efficient. Half of respondents disagreed that an electronic infrastructure for document exchange would speed up transactions’.
In conclusion it is hard to see any justification in the accusation of ‘hijacking’. The HIP was introduced in 2004 with the promulgation of the Housing Act. This left plenty of the time for conveyancing lawyers to plan and prepare so as to be first in the queue, and well ahead of the ‘interested parties’. Just because the majority failed to act, invest time and money and take the risks as many others have, it is hardly a basis for valid complaint. There was no hijack, it was more akin to a horse race where the favourite horse failed to leave the starting stalls.
Related Article: A Review of the Law Society’s Consultation Paper: CLICK HERE
Thursday 7 January 2010
Addressing the growing concern about the continuing promotion of training programmes for energy assessors:
Contribution from Nicholas Shaw, Home Inspector, addressing the growing concern about the continuing promotion of training programmes for energy assessors:
‘My personal agenda on this issue stems from the fact that when I began my training to qualify as a Home Inspector I, and all the other trainees I met during my course had been given the impression by quoted examples of the high income that could be made from working as a HI/DEA. Throughout our course we were constantly encouraged to believe that very high earnings were possible from producing HCRs and EPC. We were encouraged to believe that even a change of government would make no difference to the market for our skills.
As to a solution to the problem of a small pool of work being shared out amongst an increasing number of qualified practitioners the only solution seems to be that ABBE, prompted by the CLG should call a halt to training. I fully understand that the government will say that it does not have the authority to do this but the Housing Act must allow for the enactment of a moratorium on the certification and accreditation of HIs and DEAs until the market situation stabilises. We already have more than enough DEAs to meet the demands of even a recovered housing market. As a further step I believe that those like myself that took the Home Inspector, that are as yet unaccredited, root should be eligible for some degree of compensation as the Dip HI qualification is not worth the paper it is printed on. Compensation could take the form of monetary recompense and their free transfer onto the DEA scheme. As time goes on I have noticed that the particular trainer I used, or was used by, shifts its ground by moving its newspaper adverts from qualification to qualification. It went from adverts for Home Inspectors to Energy Assessors and now has moved on to Air Conditioning Assessors as each specialism fills up.
I am sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant by I feel very hard done by, as do many of my colleagues. Cheated by our training companies with the assistance of the government by failing to retain proper control of the development of this supposed 'new' group of professionals. We can expect no help or sympathy from a new Conservative administration as they will just use the usual excuse of it not being their 'fault' and that we should blame the previous three Labour governments.’
7/1/10
Homeowners point to lack of credit as reason for shortage of homes
Fresh evidence has emerged today which helps support the belief of many that the lack of credit, rather than the home information pack (believe it or not this is still being claimed), is the main reason for the shortage of homes for sale.
In a survey carried out by Zoopla.co.uk called ‘Housing Market Sentiment Survey’ it found that although there exists increased confidence amongst homeowners, the results did show confidence alone was not enough to boost activity in the housing market as much still depends on the availability of mortgage funding.
It records:
‘75% of those surveyed claim that it is no easier now to get a mortgage than three months ago, placing the onus on lenders to work to increase confidence and help further lift the transaction volumes’.
Overall the results of the survey were positive, and indicate that compared with last year, when confidence was rock bottom, the outlook for 2010 is far more favorable. Homeowners signalled in the survey that the clearest indicator to them of a property market recovery ‘would be evidence of greater market activity in their local area – both in terms of more properties on the market for sale and transactions taking place’
Asked in the survey what homeowners were expecting to do over the next 6 months there was a clear intention to improve their properties in the coming months. In fact ‘42% of homeowners stated they would be embarking on home improvements over the next six months’, and which according to Zoopla, ‘may signal a greater willingness to get homes ready to put on the market’.
To see the full results please visit: http://bit.ly/4uKGIV
In a survey carried out by Zoopla.co.uk called ‘Housing Market Sentiment Survey’ it found that although there exists increased confidence amongst homeowners, the results did show confidence alone was not enough to boost activity in the housing market as much still depends on the availability of mortgage funding.
It records:
‘75% of those surveyed claim that it is no easier now to get a mortgage than three months ago, placing the onus on lenders to work to increase confidence and help further lift the transaction volumes’.
Overall the results of the survey were positive, and indicate that compared with last year, when confidence was rock bottom, the outlook for 2010 is far more favorable. Homeowners signalled in the survey that the clearest indicator to them of a property market recovery ‘would be evidence of greater market activity in their local area – both in terms of more properties on the market for sale and transactions taking place’
Asked in the survey what homeowners were expecting to do over the next 6 months there was a clear intention to improve their properties in the coming months. In fact ‘42% of homeowners stated they would be embarking on home improvements over the next six months’, and which according to Zoopla, ‘may signal a greater willingness to get homes ready to put on the market’.
To see the full results please visit: http://bit.ly/4uKGIV
Wednesday 6 January 2010
Abolition of HIPs could present bleak future for Energy Assessors
There can be little doubt that without the vehicle provided by the Home Information Pack, the Energy Performance Certificate would have over the past year or so struggled. Its impact on reducing carbon emissions and on presenting home sellers and buyers with upfront information on the energy efficiency of property would have been far less. This can be stated with an air of confidence, given the outcome of a recent survey carried out by the OFT that shockingly disclosed that one out of every two properties in Northern Ireland, where there is no HIP, is marketed without an EPC!
The Conservative Party says it will retain the EPC and look to adopt the Northern Ireland model. This can only, given the Northern Ireland experience, strike fear in the hearts of many energy assessors as without the HIP there exists a real danger of assessors seeing less work as well as experiencing lower charges. As the market is currently flooded by assessors there would be commercial factors at play that could force the price of an EPC down even further.
This begs the question of how low can an energy assessor realistically afford to go when it comes to fixing a fee?
One assessor has carried out an analysis of the costing behind undertaking 521 EPCs over the last 8 months. Applying the average overheads incurred during this period to what is fast becoming an average ‘panel’ fee for an EPC of £30, the figures show:
‘Panel’ Fee £30.00
Less Overheads
Lodgement fee £-6.15
Accreditation fee £-2.50
PDA Fee £-2.00
Mileage Allowance £-3.17
CPD (£250pa 500 EPCs) £-0.50
Phone Costs £-1.00
Advertising £-0.14
Travel, meals £-0.19
Net fee per EPC = £10.65
The situation becomes even bleaker when applying this figure to the actual time involved in producing the £30 EPC.
Applying the fee to a 3 bedroom house, and a one off job, the time involved for straight forward EPC survey is:
Travel to and from site 30 minutes
Time on site 45 minutes
Administration 10 minutes
Total 85 minutes
The above produces an hourly rate of £7.52 which if then extrapolated out to an 8 hour day equals £60.14. Assuming there are 190 days during a working year (220 less 30 days for public and personal holidays) this gives rise to £11427pa gross wages – just £3,000 over the annual minimum wage!
However, to achieve this modest return the energy assessor would be required to carry out 1073 EPCs at £30 gross which works out at around 6 EPCs every working day. The question is how many DEAs are undertaking 6 EPCs a day every day of every week? Not many!
Some energy assessors believe that fees will increase if HIPs are abolished. The truth is that by removing the HIP work levels will fall and market pressure will force the EPC price down even further. At least the HIP has provided many energy assessors with the opportunity of maximising the return on their inspection with some earning around £100 to £150 on each transaction.
(Tags: Home Information Packs; Domestic Energy Assessors; Energy; HIPs; Home Inspectors; Conservative Party)
The Conservative Party says it will retain the EPC and look to adopt the Northern Ireland model. This can only, given the Northern Ireland experience, strike fear in the hearts of many energy assessors as without the HIP there exists a real danger of assessors seeing less work as well as experiencing lower charges. As the market is currently flooded by assessors there would be commercial factors at play that could force the price of an EPC down even further.
This begs the question of how low can an energy assessor realistically afford to go when it comes to fixing a fee?
One assessor has carried out an analysis of the costing behind undertaking 521 EPCs over the last 8 months. Applying the average overheads incurred during this period to what is fast becoming an average ‘panel’ fee for an EPC of £30, the figures show:
‘Panel’ Fee £30.00
Less Overheads
Lodgement fee £-6.15
Accreditation fee £-2.50
PDA Fee £-2.00
Mileage Allowance £-3.17
CPD (£250pa 500 EPCs) £-0.50
Phone Costs £-1.00
Advertising £-0.14
Travel, meals £-0.19
Net fee per EPC = £10.65
The situation becomes even bleaker when applying this figure to the actual time involved in producing the £30 EPC.
Applying the fee to a 3 bedroom house, and a one off job, the time involved for straight forward EPC survey is:
Travel to and from site 30 minutes
Time on site 45 minutes
Administration 10 minutes
Total 85 minutes
The above produces an hourly rate of £7.52 which if then extrapolated out to an 8 hour day equals £60.14. Assuming there are 190 days during a working year (220 less 30 days for public and personal holidays) this gives rise to £11427pa gross wages – just £3,000 over the annual minimum wage!
However, to achieve this modest return the energy assessor would be required to carry out 1073 EPCs at £30 gross which works out at around 6 EPCs every working day. The question is how many DEAs are undertaking 6 EPCs a day every day of every week? Not many!
Some energy assessors believe that fees will increase if HIPs are abolished. The truth is that by removing the HIP work levels will fall and market pressure will force the EPC price down even further. At least the HIP has provided many energy assessors with the opportunity of maximising the return on their inspection with some earning around £100 to £150 on each transaction.
(Tags: Home Information Packs; Domestic Energy Assessors; Energy; HIPs; Home Inspectors; Conservative Party)
Sunday 3 January 2010
Grant Shapps: New Year, Same Old Story!
Entering a New Year seems to have had little effect on the determination of Grant Shapps and his team to plunge their knife deeper into the flesh of the Home Information Pack industry. In the latest communication emanating from his office (one sent in response to an increasing number of letters and e-mails that are sent to him on this topic) Shapps acknowledging that the HIP has not, due to the recession had the best of starts, now begins to turn his focus on the so called ‘cost burden’ of the HIP:
‘Compulsory HIPs have created an additional £650 million burden on an already beleaguered housing market. It is fair to say that the lack of credit availability and paucity of capital seen in the last 18 months has been unprecedented so it's true that the introduction of HIPs could not have come at a worse time but additional and unnecessary burdens should not be tolerated merely because maintaining the status quo is the simple option’.
It is unclear where this £650 million figure comes from and one can only guess it is calculated with reference to the retail cost of the HIP. If this is correct then it begs the question has his office actually undertaken a survey to ascertain the average cost of the HIP and to compare this with the cost of home selling and buying both prior to and post the introduction of the HIP?
In a recent article in which Shapps was quoted the price of a HIP was stated as being £400! Just shows how far off beam he and his officials are, as we all know that the average cost of a HIP is more in the region of £250, if not lower.
His office should also be asked to consult with conveyancers and search providers before making comments of this sort. It’s a shame the Shadow Housing Minister and his researchers find it is a chore to do some ‘home work’ before putting pen to paper. If contacted most conveyancers and search providers would say that the cost of the sale and purchase of a home has since the HIP was introduced fallen by around 40%. This is due to an increase in personal searches and the beneficial impact this has had on prices.
More fundamentally the statement that the Hip has cost the consumer £650 million pounds extra is nonsense. Apart from the energy performance certificate, the HIP places no additional cost onto the consumer. All the other components comprise of information and documents that the consumer would need, and be required to pay for, with or without a HIP.
Not content with quoting one wholly misleading figure, Shapps Office then moves onto the money it claims will be saved by the abolition of the HIP and which could then be used elsewhere within the economy. His office claims:
‘The housing sector and the wider economy will benefit from the £350 million a year boost that scrapping HIPs will bring and Grant is committed to delivering that much-needed shot in the arm by keeping the Party's promise to abolish HIPs as soon as possible should Conservatives win the forthcoming General Election’.
As before, the brandishing of a figure without any data to back it up is not helpful. One can only again make an educated guess that this relates to the cost of maintaining the scheme, covering for example, the cost of promotional material and enforcement.
To claim if the HIP is removed this money would be free to be used elsewhere is disingenuous in the extreme. The cost would not be saved as there would still need to be funding to support the energy performance certificate that the Conservatives say they will retain. There is unlikely to be little difference in funding a HIP with an EPC included and an arrangement where the EPC is liberated and operating alone.
The figure of £350 million is in any event more than justified when one looks at the 28% sale transaction failure rate that cost consumers £1 million each day before the HIP was introduced.
Yet again we see different and varying reasons emerging from Shapps Office indicating a lack of cohesion and uncertainty. No longer is there mention of the HIP ‘stifling’ the property market and of the urgent need to suspend the legislation. The current line of response is to throw meaningless figures into the arena in the hope these will cause further confusion and lead to consumer support.
Surely the time has now come to accept that the HIP has benefits and to adapt rather than scrap is the only way forward. It is important for us all to make sure the Conservative Party is reminded of this and to maintain communication along these lines with Shapps Office and local conservative MPs or prospective conservative candidates.
‘Compulsory HIPs have created an additional £650 million burden on an already beleaguered housing market. It is fair to say that the lack of credit availability and paucity of capital seen in the last 18 months has been unprecedented so it's true that the introduction of HIPs could not have come at a worse time but additional and unnecessary burdens should not be tolerated merely because maintaining the status quo is the simple option’.
It is unclear where this £650 million figure comes from and one can only guess it is calculated with reference to the retail cost of the HIP. If this is correct then it begs the question has his office actually undertaken a survey to ascertain the average cost of the HIP and to compare this with the cost of home selling and buying both prior to and post the introduction of the HIP?
In a recent article in which Shapps was quoted the price of a HIP was stated as being £400! Just shows how far off beam he and his officials are, as we all know that the average cost of a HIP is more in the region of £250, if not lower.
His office should also be asked to consult with conveyancers and search providers before making comments of this sort. It’s a shame the Shadow Housing Minister and his researchers find it is a chore to do some ‘home work’ before putting pen to paper. If contacted most conveyancers and search providers would say that the cost of the sale and purchase of a home has since the HIP was introduced fallen by around 40%. This is due to an increase in personal searches and the beneficial impact this has had on prices.
More fundamentally the statement that the Hip has cost the consumer £650 million pounds extra is nonsense. Apart from the energy performance certificate, the HIP places no additional cost onto the consumer. All the other components comprise of information and documents that the consumer would need, and be required to pay for, with or without a HIP.
Not content with quoting one wholly misleading figure, Shapps Office then moves onto the money it claims will be saved by the abolition of the HIP and which could then be used elsewhere within the economy. His office claims:
‘The housing sector and the wider economy will benefit from the £350 million a year boost that scrapping HIPs will bring and Grant is committed to delivering that much-needed shot in the arm by keeping the Party's promise to abolish HIPs as soon as possible should Conservatives win the forthcoming General Election’.
As before, the brandishing of a figure without any data to back it up is not helpful. One can only again make an educated guess that this relates to the cost of maintaining the scheme, covering for example, the cost of promotional material and enforcement.
To claim if the HIP is removed this money would be free to be used elsewhere is disingenuous in the extreme. The cost would not be saved as there would still need to be funding to support the energy performance certificate that the Conservatives say they will retain. There is unlikely to be little difference in funding a HIP with an EPC included and an arrangement where the EPC is liberated and operating alone.
The figure of £350 million is in any event more than justified when one looks at the 28% sale transaction failure rate that cost consumers £1 million each day before the HIP was introduced.
Yet again we see different and varying reasons emerging from Shapps Office indicating a lack of cohesion and uncertainty. No longer is there mention of the HIP ‘stifling’ the property market and of the urgent need to suspend the legislation. The current line of response is to throw meaningless figures into the arena in the hope these will cause further confusion and lead to consumer support.
Surely the time has now come to accept that the HIP has benefits and to adapt rather than scrap is the only way forward. It is important for us all to make sure the Conservative Party is reminded of this and to maintain communication along these lines with Shapps Office and local conservative MPs or prospective conservative candidates.
More contributions from HRG supporters
Hi
I calculate ( low estimate ) that the cost to the government if they cancel the HIP and EPCs get kicked into the long grass is a £ 200M. This is based on 2M HIPs per annum and 12000 DEAs and HIP provider staff claiming benefits
Can any government afford to give up this amount of revenue
Regards
Sev Holt
H&H Energy Assessors Ltd
Hi,
I was wondering how the Conservatives were planning on replacing all the revenue generated by out industry going directly into the governments purse. I don’t know how many HIPs are produced every month but I suspect that the vast majority of them charged to the vendors include vat, as they in the main won’t be able to claim back that vat the government must be earning in the region of £50 for every HIP produced, that is a lot of money. Are they going to increase everybody’s personal taxes to compensate for this large loss of income?????????????
Nick Stilton
J&N Energy
I calculate ( low estimate ) that the cost to the government if they cancel the HIP and EPCs get kicked into the long grass is a £ 200M. This is based on 2M HIPs per annum and 12000 DEAs and HIP provider staff claiming benefits
Can any government afford to give up this amount of revenue
Regards
Sev Holt
H&H Energy Assessors Ltd
Hi,
I was wondering how the Conservatives were planning on replacing all the revenue generated by out industry going directly into the governments purse. I don’t know how many HIPs are produced every month but I suspect that the vast majority of them charged to the vendors include vat, as they in the main won’t be able to claim back that vat the government must be earning in the region of £50 for every HIP produced, that is a lot of money. Are they going to increase everybody’s personal taxes to compensate for this large loss of income?????????????
Nick Stilton
J&N Energy
Latest figures v Mr Shapps
The figures today from Chartered Surveyors have shown the mortgage take up for November 2009, has outstripped the figures for November 2007. While giving caution for these figures, the hope is the market is more stable and less speculative, and that the peaks and troughs of previous years is less evident.
The conclusions then are that
The HIP has had no detrimental effect on the housing market and it is clear that it has been an assistance in the early recovery.
The up-front information contained in the HIP is converting the sale of properties early and with less ‘fall through’ of transactions, exactly as it is supposed to.
The market is not over subscribed with phantom or over speculative vendors but contains properties which are for sale at a market price and with more information available than ever before for would be purchasers.
The challenge to Mr Shapps must now be to have a proper debate about the HIP and not just to play silly electioneering games which threaten the good work and livelihoods of the people working in the industry.
We have to insist that he has got this wrong, the argument he uses are now shown to be flawed and the tories must replace the man with a more experienced shadow housing spokesman, he has clearly lost the argument and most probably the plot.
HRG would like to thank Brian Dodd for the above contribution
The conclusions then are that
The HIP has had no detrimental effect on the housing market and it is clear that it has been an assistance in the early recovery.
The up-front information contained in the HIP is converting the sale of properties early and with less ‘fall through’ of transactions, exactly as it is supposed to.
The market is not over subscribed with phantom or over speculative vendors but contains properties which are for sale at a market price and with more information available than ever before for would be purchasers.
The challenge to Mr Shapps must now be to have a proper debate about the HIP and not just to play silly electioneering games which threaten the good work and livelihoods of the people working in the industry.
We have to insist that he has got this wrong, the argument he uses are now shown to be flawed and the tories must replace the man with a more experienced shadow housing spokesman, he has clearly lost the argument and most probably the plot.
HRG would like to thank Brian Dodd for the above contribution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)