They are as rubbish a concept now as they were in August.
It is mainly only the self-interested HIP providers, who seem to think that this system has any value. The system was discredited before it even started and only went ahead because a bigoted coalition of the aforementioned HIP providers, trade bodies and the government refused to roll over and insisted that their pride and interests were more important than the interests of the public at large who had to pay for their mistakes.
The Home Condition Report, currently on hold and not implemented, is unnecessary, expensive and just a ‘cunning government plan’ to get home owners’ information on government records at the public’s expense.
On the basis of ‘caveat emptor’ this is not needed from the seller as a mortgage valuation needs to be done and a home buyer’s level two survey is freely available. In practice, the valuation is not a factor in any slowdown in the home buying process
Having said all of that, I acknowledge that Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) are here to stay, and that the seller providing the local authority searches makes some sense. But what I cannot agree with is the timing of these, the extra costs that are unnecessarily incurred and, indeed, even the need for the pack providers full stop.
I have great sympathy for the poor souls who have trained as inspectors – this must rank as government ‘mis-selling’ of the highest order and they should either be found alternative work or suitably compensated.
However, there is an option to get this disastrous government out of the mire. European Union Directive 2002/91/EC states that EPCs must be made available when buildings are ‘constructed, sold or rented out’.
But an initiative by the government to give a financial incentive to non-moving home owners to have an energy inspection may be a cheaper way than mere compensation, and would endorse the green credentials of any government in the current environment. Also I believe that many of the energy inspectors could work with existing surveyors under my proposals.
My plan for getting this government off the hook and back onto a real improvement in the speed of the home buying and selling process in a meaningful and genuine way, would be to base it on the Law Society’s idea of several years ago called the ‘transaction protocol’.
Under this system, the selling solicitor would provide a full pack to the buyer’s solicitor, containing searches, contracts, and details of title, etc. Personal searches would only be undertaken if the buyer’s solicitor was comfortable with them, otherwise traditional searches would be done by the local authority.
The one contribution the government can make is to ensure that all local authorities can produce these within a matter of a day or so. In practice, many local authorities are still way behind that timetable and need to show significant improvement.
Currently it is not a requirement of a HIP to have information on flooding, subsidence and contaminated land. This is only included at the ‘discretion of the seller’. Therefore, this, I would suggest, is a matter for the property buyer’s solicitor anyway to decide on what additional searches they require to protect their client’s interest.
Danny Lovey
The Mortgage Practitioner
