Home Information Packs - are you for them or against them?

grade15

if you think about it..it would save money and time..a 1 info pack about the house..already done..so when buyers are interested..they have the pack without waiting or numerous potential buyers all doing the same search..saves money and time..
but what worries me, is the cost and how pays for it..
they could get the seller to pay for it and charge a small amount for potential buyers..to have a copy!

dougk_2

meanmachine wrote:

How can anyone *in principle* be against HIPs?

How can you be against a system that stops potential buyers having to pay for the same survey on the same home time after time after time after time?

*in principle* things like LA searches, mortgage approvals, valuations should be available within 24/48 hours and in the case of searches instant via an online search. In practice and reality this doesn't and won't happen.

A valuation of a house in the current climate is valid only for a month or so maximum. So therefore I see it that if HIPS is the way to go then the packs should be valid for 1-3 months only in case something happens to the house or the area (new planning applications happen every day, drains/sewers fail). So then if a house is on a market for six months the seller may need topay for several HIPS.

Catch 22 really - HIPS is as flawed (or more so) than the current situation.

BobProperty

honeychurch wrote:

....We put in an offer on a leasehold place recently and it took weeks for us to get the sellers questionnaires back from the solicitor, which threw up a number of issues which we have had to urgently consider - the biggest being major external redecoration planned for next year- which could be thousands. (incidently the vendor claims to know nothing about this). At this point we had already paid 475 for the valuation and survey but if we can't renegotiate the agreed purchase price we will have to pull out!

Why does it take so long to find out this information? Surely HIPs will speed things up?

This is a typical example of where HIPs may make things worse. Suppose the vendor had started the selling process before they heard about the re-decoration. The HIP would have some info on the planned maintenance but not the forthcoming big bill. You rely on the HIP. Then, if you're lucky, you solicitor or surveyor asks the question and it comes to light. What happens if they rely on the HIP? What if the HIP was 5 months old? Is the vendor (depending on how honest they are) going to volunteer to change the HIP to say "expect a big bill just after you buy"? Or do they have to pay for a re-inspection and a revised HIP which will include that information if the HIP Inspector spots it? (Which is why they need insurance )

sue_balu

irnbru wrote:

Don't these chains take 2/4/6/ months to complete? I don't hear people geting a new survey done every 8 weeks.

You make my point, the reports will already be 2/4/6/12 months out of date when you BEGIN the lengthy conveyance process. In other words likely to be unreliable. No one surely believes solicitors will be any quicker with HIPs!! LOL:rotfl:

RiskAdverse100

Estate Agents are vehemently opposed to HIPs.

They give a number of reasons for this. However, some of the implications of the HIPs legislation, that Estate Agents aren't too keen to admit, are the following:

1. All Estate Agents will have to belong to an approved independent redress scheme. At the moment 40% of agents belong to the Estate Agents Ombudsman Scheme and from later this year all agents who are members of the National Association of Estate Agents will have to belong to the Ombudsman Scheme. This will increase membership to around 70%. The remaining 40% of agents will be forced to join a scheme at some cost.

2. Estate Agents who market properties will bear some responsibility for ensuring that the HIP is properly assembled and that the documents in this are complete and authentic. This will involve increased training costs which have been estimated at £5,000 per office.

3. There will be additional recurring costs for agents as a result of time spent assembling packs, staff training and compliance measures. Agents may have to increase their Indemnity Insurance cover as well.

So, whatever agents say publicly about HIPs, privately they can see that their introduction will hit their profit margins hugely.

They can hardly campaign against HIPs on the basis that they are going to cost them money and give consumers better rights. Would anyone sympathise?

One possible reason consumer bodies are so in favour of HIPs is that complusory membership of redress schemes for all agents will benefit consumers hugely to the detriment of those dodgy agents that exist.

RiskAdverse100

F_T_Buyer

meanmachine wrote:

How can anyone *in principle* be against HIPs?

How can you be against a system that stops potential buyers having to pay for the same survey on the same home time after time after time after time?

The question is whether the govt's got it right with their fudged proposals. That's another poll entirely.

By the way, the Daily Mail is against it because it's an estate agent - it owns propertyfinder.com.

Ok, fair point. I just wanted to see what the opinion was on this website.

I am for HIPs for the reasons outlined by others (especially RiskAdverse100). I do think things could be clarified far more, but it doesnt help when EAs are pushing their biased views.

hechizero

The general economic ethos here is degraded - this is a fact. Everyone wants something for nothing. The cost of HIP's will be handed directly to the buyer at an inflated price. So where is the benefit in that. This is a field day for middlemen and everyone will jump on the bandwagon to see where they can squeeze more money from. When an offer becomes legally binding perhaps we will see some responsibility in the housing market. Until that is done, whatever changes that are made will unfortunately only have a negative effect on the consumer, one way or another. We live in a bloated society where everyone is out for themselves and this could not be epitomised better than in the housing market. The reason nothing positive gets done is because there is never a consensus, everyone always has to have their own point of view, to the determent of the whole. The sensible "thing" never gets done. If the Scottish system works so well, why did the government not trial that system in England (or perhaps they have). Any thoughts on that? Or is it foolish pride that keeps a broken system broke.

dougk_2

RiskAdverse100 wrote:

One possible reason consumer bodies are so in favour of HIPs is that complusory membership of redress schemes for all agents will benefit consumers hugely to the detriment of those dodgy agents that exist.
RiskAdverse100

Yes this is a benefit, but it could be done much more easily - Regulate Estage agents, so that we eradicate any dodgy ones. It can be done is the same way that solicitors or doctors are regulated.

Jorgan_2

Some interesting points raised by RiskAdverse, however as an Estate Agent, I could argue with the following;

The NAEA, along with many others, has been pushing for legislation within the industry for years, the government have had a number of chances to introduce legislation in the past & have failed.

Staff will be have to be trained in dealing with HIPS, they were also trained with the introduction of the PMA in the early 1990's. Good agents will have ongoing training programmes anyway for their staff & this will fall into line with ongoing training.

Many of the HIP providers are offering to cover the Agents that use them with regards to Indemnity Insurance, so it may not have any effect on the premiums being paid.

If HIP's were good for the overall market, as the government says, then Estate Agents would welcome them with open arms. I could argue the following points:

According to the government, it will speed the house buying & selling process up. Great I can get my commission quicker.

People who are not serious about selling won't be putting their properties on the market, therefore costs to Estate Agents will decrease as they are not wasting time & money marketing properties where people have no intention of selling. Profits may therefore actually increase.

Less houses on the market could push prices up, higher commissions all round.

Estate Agents may get referral fees from HIP providers, another income stream.

The reason many Estate Agents are against HIP's is because they feel it is a flawed piece of legislation brought in to cover the energy rating legislation that was agreed to in the past.

There is no proof that HIPs will speed up the buying/selling process. It will not save money for many as they will still have to employ the services of a solicitor to act in both a sale & purchase, they may also want to employ the services of their own surveyor for piece of mind.



The fact that a the overall condition of a property is available up front to a potential purchaser will possibly be a good thing, however the Home Condition Report fails to cover a number of important points such as electrical testing & subsidence risk.

BobProperty

Jorgan wrote:

....The fact that a the overall condition of a property is available up front to a potential purchaser will possibly be a good thing, however the Home Condition Report fails to cover a number of important points such as electrical testing & subsidence risk.

Jorgan makes some good points there. One thing I wish to add, which seems underestimated in this discussion relates to the point above. The Home Inspectors have been trained on some sort of government backed training course for ? months. They will not be as well trained as quailified surveyors. They won't have the experience of qualified surveyors. What is going to happen when they make a mistake? Hence my repeated question of their insurance. Until a Home Inspector has insurance surely he should not be trading? Until he knows what the premium is, he can't know what to charge.
Second, if HIPs become a subset of estate agents work, they will have to cover the costs. If Joe Public wants them all registering or being licensed then someone will have to carry the costs. If I remember correctly that's how it is in the USA, all "realtors" have to undergo training and get licenses to practice. Typical "realtor" fee is about 5-6%. Is Joe Public happy with that?