Further clarification on issues surrounding the HIP have today emerged from Grant Shapps’ office. In reply to a letter sent to Mr Shapps by an energy assessor who like many of his colleagues is concerned about the loss of livelihood if the HIP is abolished, the Conservative Party has once again questioned the necessity for the HIP stating it:
‘.... believe(s) that if they (HIPs) are in fact an effective and efficient means of compiling important documents relating to a home and a useful source of information in the home buying process then they will survive in the market without the need for legislation’.
Ignoring the fact all attempts over the past 75 years to introduce, through voluntary take up schemes, such as protocols, have failed miserably, the letter then goes on to explain the reason for wishing to implement policy that will clearly throw us all back into the dark ages:
‘To clarify, we do not claim that HIPs have caused the financial problems which have pervaded in the economy over the period of their existence, but the continuation of such a costly piece of bureaucracy has harmed the market and created unnecessary costs for sellers in an already depressed market. All of the figures quoted have used the Government’s own estimates of HIPs produced and estimated average costs, obtained via Parliamentary Questions. Any problems with their basis should therefore be taken up with the Department for Communities and Local Government’.
At long last we have official acknowledgement from the Conservative Party that the HIP is not the cause for the collapse of last year of the property market. Halleluiah! Instead the focus is on how the HIP is costing the consumer more to move home. When will the Conservative Party ‘get it’, the HIP has led to lower conveyancing costs and the removal of the 1 million pounds per day lost in failed transactions. It is a simple set of fact but one that is continuously overlooked.
Asked about the Home Buying Survey commissioned back in 2007 and why the Conservative Party has consistently refused to disclose the findings Mr Shapps explains:
‘We undertook to review home buying during a very different climate for the market and we continue to monitor the market’s recovery and regularly receive testimonials from buyers and sellers describing their experiences and offering their thoughts on how the system could be improved. Grant will always pay keen attention to such correspondence and it is used to inform future policy.’
Sorry, but this is nonsense and Mr Shapps knows it is. We are all bright enough to view results in light of changes in market conditions and as the market is picking up and will inevitably go through a similar cycle why not let us see what the survey revealed. The truth must be that it does not support the policy Mr Shapps is pushing.
Strangely when asked about the affect his policy will have upon the spirit of entrepreneurialism, and how it will lead to job losses, instead of offering to see if there is an alternative route of achieving his aim but one which would have less impact, the response focuses on how political ideology seems to be the only factor that is important to Mr Shapps. His office writes:
‘ As you so rightly point out, Conservatives believe that entrepreneurs and others who work hard to benefit themselves, their families and the economy are the bedrock of a flourishing economy and are vital to any economic recovery. However, we do not believe that imposing bureaucracy and red-tape is the best means by which to encourage entrepreneurialism’.
Banging one’s head against a brick wall comes to mind when the response ends with a reiteration of the fact the policy thinking has always been consistent and that as the EPC is to be retained we should all be grateful. Interestingly his office is still labouring under the delusion that the policy is a popular one and will win votes. They say:
‘We have set out our stall and have always been consistent about our intention to abolish Home Information Packs. We will however maintain and enhance Energy Performance Certificates and leave it to the electorate to decide whose plans are best for the housing market’.
I believe he is wrong and that the Conservative Party is underestimating the power and influence of the industry when it comes to engaging with and educating homeowners. The problem is that rather than speaking with those who are engaging as grass root level , Mr Shapps is instead putting too much emphasis on feedback from a very small section of the property industry.
‘.... believe(s) that if they (HIPs) are in fact an effective and efficient means of compiling important documents relating to a home and a useful source of information in the home buying process then they will survive in the market without the need for legislation’.
Ignoring the fact all attempts over the past 75 years to introduce, through voluntary take up schemes, such as protocols, have failed miserably, the letter then goes on to explain the reason for wishing to implement policy that will clearly throw us all back into the dark ages:
‘To clarify, we do not claim that HIPs have caused the financial problems which have pervaded in the economy over the period of their existence, but the continuation of such a costly piece of bureaucracy has harmed the market and created unnecessary costs for sellers in an already depressed market. All of the figures quoted have used the Government’s own estimates of HIPs produced and estimated average costs, obtained via Parliamentary Questions. Any problems with their basis should therefore be taken up with the Department for Communities and Local Government’.
At long last we have official acknowledgement from the Conservative Party that the HIP is not the cause for the collapse of last year of the property market. Halleluiah! Instead the focus is on how the HIP is costing the consumer more to move home. When will the Conservative Party ‘get it’, the HIP has led to lower conveyancing costs and the removal of the 1 million pounds per day lost in failed transactions. It is a simple set of fact but one that is continuously overlooked.
Asked about the Home Buying Survey commissioned back in 2007 and why the Conservative Party has consistently refused to disclose the findings Mr Shapps explains:
‘We undertook to review home buying during a very different climate for the market and we continue to monitor the market’s recovery and regularly receive testimonials from buyers and sellers describing their experiences and offering their thoughts on how the system could be improved. Grant will always pay keen attention to such correspondence and it is used to inform future policy.’
Sorry, but this is nonsense and Mr Shapps knows it is. We are all bright enough to view results in light of changes in market conditions and as the market is picking up and will inevitably go through a similar cycle why not let us see what the survey revealed. The truth must be that it does not support the policy Mr Shapps is pushing.
Strangely when asked about the affect his policy will have upon the spirit of entrepreneurialism, and how it will lead to job losses, instead of offering to see if there is an alternative route of achieving his aim but one which would have less impact, the response focuses on how political ideology seems to be the only factor that is important to Mr Shapps. His office writes:
‘ As you so rightly point out, Conservatives believe that entrepreneurs and others who work hard to benefit themselves, their families and the economy are the bedrock of a flourishing economy and are vital to any economic recovery. However, we do not believe that imposing bureaucracy and red-tape is the best means by which to encourage entrepreneurialism’.
Banging one’s head against a brick wall comes to mind when the response ends with a reiteration of the fact the policy thinking has always been consistent and that as the EPC is to be retained we should all be grateful. Interestingly his office is still labouring under the delusion that the policy is a popular one and will win votes. They say:
‘We have set out our stall and have always been consistent about our intention to abolish Home Information Packs. We will however maintain and enhance Energy Performance Certificates and leave it to the electorate to decide whose plans are best for the housing market’.
I believe he is wrong and that the Conservative Party is underestimating the power and influence of the industry when it comes to engaging with and educating homeowners. The problem is that rather than speaking with those who are engaging as grass root level , Mr Shapps is instead putting too much emphasis on feedback from a very small section of the property industry.
Is it just me, or it is that the view of the Conservative party is one and the same as just about all of the estate agents that I have dealings with?
ReplyDeleteHere's an exercise for you; Call a local estate agent up and make like you have a house to sell, make sure you ask about what 'all this new HIP stuff' is about, see what answer you get.
Most agents in my experience will tell you it's just another bit of red tape and generally give it a bad over view. These are the same agents who are quite willing to take up to 25% of the HIP fee up front leaving the humble HIP provider with an average of £200.00
which after expenses and fees maybe a clear profit of £80.00 if you are lucky.
Perhaps we need to get the agents on side and explain the benefits of keeping HIPs. Perhaps (and this is where it gets a bit sticky) Mr Shapps has a finger in an estate agency venture somewhere?
Lets just say that HIP's do disappear. The agents making 25% off the back of HIP's will have to find another revenue stream to make up for the loss. Who do you think will pay for that? Home buyer or seller?
Until someone in Mr Shapps office really gets involved in the processes and sees the benefits I honestly think we are all doomed.
Steve Bell.
Mr Shapps is obviously convinced he is doing his bit for the Conservative Party election closed minded drum banging.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be that this is the only thing Mr Shapps has in his bag, as we don't hear a lot of any other ideas or initiatives coming from him...in fact nothing else that I can think of!!
This may well backfire on him unless he shows his worth by having more than just the good old HIP in his bag...let's hope it does!
Nothing suprises me with the Tories.
ReplyDeleteMy little company provides HIPs for a dozen estate agents and we have a positive relationship with all of them. Only one of these takes a cut from the vendor and the rest of them are happy to be able to offer a value for money HIP service and even use this as a selling tool.However,Steve Bell is spot on with his estimate of the profit margin per HIP.
ReplyDeleteOnly a 25% mark up by Estate Agents? There is one very simple reason why HIPs are perceived as expensive - the price that Estate Agents charge - they do nothing to produce a HIP except order it online - less than 5 minutes work. In my area a typical HIP provided by a local independent provider will be £250-£300. Local Estate Agents are charging as much as £450 for exactly the same product - and some (National 'upmarket' Estate Agents - you know who they are) charge as much as £750. Perhaps all Tory politicians are ex-Estate Agents...
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat watered down from earlier rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteEven the Tories must realise that HIPs are not a burning issue with voters.
His conclusion is still equivocal, It is only the Tories "intention" to abolish HIPs.
My view is that a review will be called for if they get into power.
It will need a Sir Humphrey figure to point out the VAT receipts which, will be lost if HIPs are abolished, can be ill afforded with the national debt at chronic levels.
Paul Hajek www.actionmove.co.uk; www.cluttoncox.co.uk
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CommercialEPC/
ReplyDeleteSign the petition
I beleive that Mr Shapps either has a personal interest in the property industry, or more likely the Tory party are obeying requests from some of they large property based paymasters. The industry will be hard pushed to change their minds, unless we can get to root cause of their belligerent atitude. It is very obvious that the current stance is flawed by estimate figures and hard factual evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think that a group that has such obvious self interest in the cointinuation of HIPs such as the conributors above, can hardly be in a position to accuse anyone, tory or otherwise of not being impartial? I am an Estate agent and definitely not a tory. The adverse views of agents with regards to HIPs is occasioned only by practically observing their irrelevance in the process. In nearly 3 years since their inception we have only been asked once for a HIP by a viewer and not one purchaser has asked for sight of it BEFORE offering on a property. So any claims that such a document my save wasted time by allowing the purchaser to make an "informed" offer really is not credible. Your banner headline says it all 'Fighting to keep our industry' - I might add the word 'regardless'!
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I am strongly in favour of retaining the ECP which can exist without the cloak and support of the full HIP as a required pre sale document.