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.
No comments:
Post a Comment