Home Information Packs (HIPs) The Facts

TheGame7

...........

lynzpower

I presume you have to prove WHERE You were marketing the property before, be it a) with an ea- and show the contract b) something uploaded on a private sellers website c) an ad in the local paper.

mags24

Who would be asking? Honestly, apart from a neighbour with a grudge? And its not a criminal offence to market a house without HIP after 1st June, only a civil one, with a maximum of a £200 fine. As the Telegraph pointed out some weeks ago, that's cheaper than the price of a pack, and less hassle....

CFC

mags24 wrote: »

Who would be asking? Honestly, apart from a neighbour with a grudge? And its not a criminal offence to market a house without HIP after 1st June, only a civil one, with a maximum of a £200 fine. As the Telegraph pointed out some weeks ago, that's cheaper than the price of a pack, and less hassle....

A REALLY good point. Who is liable to the fine, the EA or the houseowner?

wymondham

"How would you prove the property has been marketed before 1 June 2007? What's to stop you saying you were selling before the date if you decide to sell in August for example?"

I'm sure estate agents are getting people onto their books now who don't want to sell until late summer etc - they will just say they wont 'actively market' the house and forget to put any signs up!

courtjester

mags24 wrote: »

Who would be asking? Honestly, apart from a neighbour with a grudge? And its not a criminal offence to market a house without HIP after 1st June, only a civil one, with a maximum of a £200 fine. As the Telegraph pointed out some weeks ago, that's cheaper than the price of a pack, and less hassle....

Trading Standards are responsible for enforcing the regulations and penalty fines. Frankly, it is unlikely that they will be chasing homeowners as they will be more interested in the activities of estate agents. However, were they to become aware by any means that a property is on the market without the relevant HIP and the property was not marketed prior to 1 June, there is no reason why they wouldn't slap the fine on a vendor.

However, you point out a common misconception that it is 'cheaper' to take the fine than buy the pack and is a ready example of why you should not believe everything you read in the papers...

The penalty fine will be £200 (for vendors at least), BUT it can be charged a limitless number of times if the regulations are continuously flouted - payment of the fine does not replace the requirement to hold a HIP during any marketing. So if you continue to ignore the requirement, Trading Standards can impose further fines ad infinitum and probably would follow up any owners to ensure thata HIP was implemented.

The regulations also cover 'sham' arrangements to tentatively put a property on the market prior to 1 June, but not actively market it until later and in such situations, the vendor /agent will forfeit the grace period.

Proof of marketing is not an issue - payment receipts for advertising purchased or marketing records held by estate agents or online services will be sufficient.

The person liable for the fine is the person 'responsible' for the marketing (as defined by the regulations) - effectively this will be the estate agent in most cases, but for people selling privately using newspaper or online advertising, their own for sale sign etc., it is the vendor who is 'responsible' and thus liable for complying with the HIP regulations.

prudryden

Is it correct that private sales are exempt? e.g. friends, family, neighbours etc. I seem to get little letters from time to time from estate agents saying they have someone interested in a property on my street. What happens if I say send your customer around, but the house is not on the market and then become "friends" with the potential buyer and then sell it at his request?

Probably considered a sham, but also probably hard to prove.

courtjester

You need to qualify the use of your term "private sale".

The regulations exempt 'private sales' of property between acquaintances, friends or family, where the property is not marketed openly to the public and the persons involved become aware of the potential sale through their own 'internal' contact.

Private selling, that is marketing direct without an agent, is NOT exempt and a HIP is still required.

The distinction is based on 'marketing', not whether you use an agent or not.

A private sale *could* include the situation where someone puts a leaflet through your door asking you to contact them if you wanted to sell, as the property is not actually 'marketed' in such circumstances. It appears that there must be an element of open advertising to the public.

Gnid

HIP will have no effect on the 1/3 transactions falling thru.

Seller - "Damn I need to keep the HIP up to date every 3 mths. I am not selling unless I really have to."

Buyer - "Great more info on the property. But I will keep making offers while I apply for mortgage. Hopefully the bank doesn't reject me this time."

What is the one constant in buying and selling property even after the introduction of HIP? You are only legally liable on exchange.

Snow_Dog

I read the other day that the fine would be max £200 per day which would after 2.5 days of marketing cost more than the pack anyway.

Crash Gordon has so far refused to be drawn on the issue of HIPS and that just shows how thorny the problem is for him as he usually manages to get his sticky fingers into most things that don't have anything to do with his office. Perhaps he sees it as a vote loser if he endorses something that could be later partially blamed if the housing market drops.

As for the energy ratings themselves it is again a farcical situation, quite typical of the country today and how we dont generate money we just move it around.

Surely most of the work involved in calculating the energy rating of a house is check boxes. Does the house have wall insulation? Double glazing? Roof insulation? When was it built. Dump it all into an excel spreadsheet and come up with a rating.

Instead we end up with training companies, paying fees to the goverrnment to become certified trainers, then being paid by others to train them, to then charge the end customer. All of this at wildly inflated rates due to the cost of governement legislation.