Things on the Home Information Pack (HIP) front have been a bit quiet as of late, but the debate over their worth has been sparked again by confirmation from the House of Lords that the dry run will cost £4 million. The anti-pack campaign group SPLINTA (Sellers Pack Law Is Not The Answer) has branded the dry run ‘a waste of taxpayer’s money’ and poured scorn over the trial’s inclusion of free packs. But the Association of Home Information Pack Providers (AHIPP) has hit back, claiming such accusations ‘miss the point’. With the trial already off to a shaky start after the removal of the Home Condition Report (HCR) as a mandatory element of the pack, opinion remains firmly divided over the trial’s worth.
Not reflecting the reality
The government states the money will be used in part to offer free packs and packs where the mandatory elements are provided free. But Nick Salmon, fellow of the National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) and head of SPLINTA, believes a subsidised trial cannot accurately reflect the reality of mandatory HIPs and that free packs will skew the results.
He says: “It’s so misleading to have free packs, as consumers’ reaction to them will be totally different. The reality is consumers will have to pay and they will have to wait up to 14 days while the HIP is put together. It’s an artificial delay and should be removed.”
However, Mike Ockenham, director-general of AHIPP, firmly denies the results will be distorted. “The trial is not testing if consumers will buy the packs. It is for the government to see that the different elements of the pack do their job and to make sure all the pack providers are ready. The idea of the free packs is to get them out there as fast as we can and to measure the affect on consumers. Ultimately, if consumers like the packs, they will tell us.”
While the HCR has been made optional, the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which was originally part of it, has remained. It is this particular document that SPLINTA feels merely causes delay and does not need testing. Salmon says: “The European Union (EU) directive already requires the EPC and says it has to come in by 2009. The report can be standalone, so the question arises what is there to test? Why go to the expense?”
The group has suggested the EPC be made a voluntary part of the HIP, allowing a property to be marketed immediately. It would only become mandatory at the exchange of contracts, with providers issuing certificates to show an order had been placed for it. Salmon believes this would make the scheme more practical and negate the need for a trial phase.
But Ockenham says the introduction of the EPC is necessary to comply with the EU before the 2009 deadline and to help reduce carbon emissions. “27 per cent of carbon emissions come from homes, so the sooner we get the EPCs out there, the sooner we can get consumers to start reducing emissions. The beauty of the EPC is that it is specific to the house. It shows what the measures will cost and consumers will save. These are sensible economic suggestions, like the insulating of lofts and proper lagging of pipes.”
Adding to the problem
Yet, Thomas Reeh, chief executive of blackandwhite.co.uk, feels the entire HIP endeavour is misjudged and the possibility of skewed results merely adds to the problem. “Making the pilot free is a joke. We’re sitting with something that could potentially damage the industry and affect hundreds of thousands of jobs. Why have a trial and not make it a proper one where the consumer has to pay?
“The industry has lost confidence with the concept of HIPs. They add another layer of complexity to the buying process that is unnecessary and unwanted. There is a huge risk to delaying sales and that will have a massive impact on the whole housing and mortgage market.”
However, Alan Dring, sales director at eConveyancer, feels such comments do little to help the situation. “In the battle to at least give consumers confidence that one way or another HIPs will be piloted properly, it doesn’t help to knock it. We have an obligation to be positive about what is trying to be achieved. The £4 million is a considerable amount and shows the government’s intention to make the dry-run a success. But it can only be something that helps us to prepare for the launch and the industry will learn a lot from it.”
It is highly unlikely the trial or HIPs themselves will be scrapped at such a late stage and only time will tell whether the dry-run is a success or not. But the debate over HIPs’ worth has some way to run and is likely to continue well beyond their introduction next June. As Dring points out, opinions change with events. Ultimately, the proof will come in seeing whether the packs really do meet the challenge of helping consumers.
