Home Information Packs to cover all properties from 14th December, 2007

[Deleted User]

I do not have any objections to having a HIP, but when you consider that most mortgage lenders do not accept the searches made by the vendor and they require the buyer to prepare their own, one has to ask the question, what's the purpose of having a HIP when no one takes any notice of its contents. If I was a buyer, I would want my own solicitor to prepare my own, because if something goes wrong would I be able to get any recompense from whoever arranged the HIPS for the seller. I don't think so. I think it would be a situation of buyer beware. So much for HIPS - nothing more than a worthless document badly conceived by a useless government.

chriserenity

LuciferTDark wrote: »

I know these things are only for people trying to sell their house but how long till the Government has the "bright" idea to force everyone to fill one in?

You mean the whole HIP or just the EPC?

EPCs are being phased in for every built structure in the country that is bought, sold, rented, publicly owned or commercial in nature. I imagine they'll make the decision whether to do EPCs on the remaining structures down the line sometime.

chriserenity

[quote=[Deleted User];6885176]I do not have any objections to having a HIP, but when you consider that most mortgage lenders do not accept the searches made by the vendor and they require the buyer to prepare their own, one has to ask the question, what's the purpose of having a HIP when no one takes any notice of its contents. If I was a buyer, I would want my own solicitor to prepare my own, because if something goes wrong would I be able to get any recompense from whoever arranged the HIPS for the seller. I don't think so. I think it would be a situation of buyer beware. So much for HIPS - nothing more than a worthless document badly conceived by a useless government.[/quote]

Why do you think there would be no opportunity for redress if there were a problem with the HIP searches? All you need to do is pick a provider that uses a company/individual that conducts searches while carrying appropriate insurance and complies with the relevant codes e.g. search code.

I'm looking at one of our HIPs now and is contains a separate search insurance certificate with full contact details, policy details, dates, indemnity limits etc. I think your argument is about the quality of some HIP providers rather than the HIP itself? New industries breed a range of quality and change in established procedures does not come easily. We will see if both these issues will be resolved with time.

Just because the CML say they won't accept the searches now doesn't mean they won't change their mind.

chartreuse_2

chriserenity wrote: »

Why do you think there would be no opportunity for redress if there were a problem with the HIP searches? All you need to do is pick a provider that uses a company/individual that conducts searches while carrying appropriate insurance and complies with the relevant codes e.g. search code.

My understanding is that the concern is because the provider's contract is with the seller: the lender and buyer have no relationship with the provider and therefore would have no recourse against him.

chriserenity

chartreuse wrote: »

My understanding is that the concern is because the provider's contract is with the seller: the lender and buyer have no relationship with the provider and therefore would have no recourse against him.

I can't speak for all HIP providers obviously but I'm reading the insurance t's and c's in one of my packs right here and its says the search provider is liable for any "negligent or incorrect interpretation of the records searched and any negligent or incorrect recording of that interpretation". Insurance carried by the search provider to protect parties relying on the information contained therein - 2 million per claim. In fact, heavier insurance than that carried by LAs.

So there you go chartreuse and lindabea, redress by ANY party relying on HIP searches not a problem if you choose the right provider.

chartreuse_2

chriserenity wrote: »

I can't speak for all HIP providers obviously but I'm reading the insurance t's and c's in one of my packs right here and its says the search provider is liable for any "negligent or incorrect interpretation of the records searched and any negligent or incorrect recording of that interpretation". Insurance carried by the search provider to protect parties relying on the information contained therein - 2 million per claim. In fact, heavier insurance than that carried by LAs.

So there you go chartreuse and lindabea, redress by ANY party relying on HIP searches not a problem if you choose the right provider.

Hmmm... perhaps. But also, perhaps not. Please bear in mind that, in the following, when I say "you" I mean J. Random HIP Provider, not you personally. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that we're into torts here.

Sure, your insurer will pay out if you are liable - but would you be? And to whom? In (over-simplified) tort, you'd be liable to another party (lender or buyer) if you'd breached a duty of care to him and that breach led to harm.

Now, as your contract is with the seller, it's clear that you owe a duty of care to him.

But what's not clear (at least to me) is whether that duty of care extends to other parties who might rely upon the information you've provided to the seller and who receive it from him.

The fact that lenders refuse to rely on the info in HIPs and require their own solicitor to do searches suggests that it's (at the very least) unclear to them too.

And, if it does not, you may find that you are, in law, not liable for any losses suffered by the buyer or his lender as a result of them relying on the info in your HIP.

Which would, of course, leave them in a rather unpleasant position.

[Deleted User]

chriserenity wrote: »

So there you go chartreuse and lindabea, redress by ANY party relying on HIP searches not a problem if you choose the right provider.

Thank you chris - the right provider!!! But that is my very point. If the seller is appointing the HIPS provider, how do you as a buyer know that the provider is covered by suitable indemnity insurance in case of a redress and that it covers you as the buyer. ie if something has been overlooked or misinterpreted by the provider. If I as a buyer cannot rely on the seller's HOPS document, what is its purpose?

chriserenity

chartreuse wrote: »

Hmmm... perhaps. But also, perhaps not. Please bear in mind that, in the following, when I say "you" I mean J. Random HIP Provider, not you personally. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that we're into torts here.

Sure, your insurer will pay out if you are liable - but would you be? And to whom? In (over-simplified) tort, you'd be liable to another party (lender or buyer) if you'd breached a duty of care to him and that breach led to harm.

Now, as your contract is with the seller, it's clear that you owe a duty of care to him.

But what's not clear (at least to me) is whether that duty of care extends to other parties who might rely upon the information you've provided to the seller and who receive it from him.

The fact that lenders refuse to rely on the info in HIPs and require their own solicitor to do searches suggests that it's (at the very least) unclear to them too.

And, if it does not, you may find that you are, in law, not liable for any losses suffered by the buyer or his lender as a result of them relying on the info in your HIP.

Which would, of course, leave them in a rather unpleasant position.

Yes, I think we're getting into a legal discussion here and I'm not a lawyer either!

I've spoken to the person who does our searches. He is very experienced and has been doing searches for a number of years. He assures me that his HIP searches are accepted by buyer's solicitors and the only ones he finds that don't accept them are the minority that didn't accept personal searches even before HIPs came in.

Regarding your point, we believe we do have a duty of care to the seller, buyer and their solicitor. Its for this reason that:

• our searches are appropriately insured
• The insurance document in our HIPs state the insurance covers losses incurred by the seller, potential/actual buyer, mortgagee. In the definitions section where it describes what the definition is of 'our client' is, it says the seller, the buyer and the mortgage lender
  
• we renew the search for free after six months if the property isn't sold to keep the search information up to date (the HIP regulations don't say we have to do this and its a benefit to the buyer not the seller)

Like I said before, I can't speak for the industry but we're doing our best to make the product as acceptable as possible by all parties.

Yes, not a lawyer but:

The paraphrased terms and conditions described on this thread by myself are not intended as replacement or addendum to our actual terms and conditions and should not be taken as such.

david29dpo

chartreuse wrote: »

The problem (apart from the obvious one, that most sellers are also buyers) is that regardless of how much money a seller wastes on a HIP, the buyer will still have to pay again to get most of the same work (searches etc) done again by their solicitor. This is because their lender won't accept the documents provided by the seller as part of the HIP.

Only if the hip has personal searches.

chriserenity

[quote=[Deleted User];6886517]Thank you chris - the right provider!!! But that is my very point. If the seller is appointing the HIPS provider, how do you as a buyer know that the provider is covered by suitable indemnity insurance in case of a redress and that it covers you as the buyer. ie if something has been overlooked or misinterpreted by the provider. If I as a buyer cannot rely on the seller's HOPS document, what is its purpose?[/quote]

Right, I understand. Well, as a buyer with the HIP available to you, why not just look in the HIP to find the insurance t's and c's and read them to see if you have redress against them. They should be located at the end of the search

I'll give you an example as that would be easier. I'll pick a random property from the HIPVIEW website (an online portal for displaying HIPs). Not one of mine I'd hasten to add if the mods are tempted to kick me off

Goto www.hipview.co.uk and search for the following property:

17 Spalding Drive
Newall Green
Manchester

YOU MAY HAVE TO COPY THE URL AS IT DOESN'T WORK FOR ME IF CLICKED ON

Click on the 'view file' for the local authority search and scroll to the bottom of the document where the insurance info is located. Its all there. As you can see, the buyer, seller and mortgage lender can rely on the info contained in the search and if there are problems full a full redress procedure is in place to deal with it.