While I can understand the commercial reason behind LMS condemning the report, I believe these reports can only do good as they help the widen the whole HIPs debate. I do not believe the report commissioned by GMAC-RFC has been totally irresponsible as it highlights problems that could happen in certain circumstances.
I do agree, however, with Dominic Toller’s view that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation about HIPs at the moment. Large sections of the public do not have a clue what is happening with HIPs and this has been confirmed by several independent reports.
A recent speech in Parliament by Ian Liddel Grainger highlighted the fact that HIPs ‘are the territory of big new money, with big new VAT returns for the Treasury, and very big bucks for...companies selling pack programmes to eager new home inspectors.’
Liddell-Grainger went on to say: ‘The introduction of HIPs is being made up as it goes along. There are enough moving goalposts to make even Wayne Rooney dizzy.’
I fully agree with Stephen Knight of GMAC-RFC, who has called for a properly conducted, ‘paid for’ dry-run organised by the government and not by the HIP industry.
Only when this has been done will we properly be able to assess the value of a HIP report.
The home buying process has improved immensely with lenders and conveyancers embracing online trading. This, coupled with online Land Registry facilities, will help eradicate many delays associated with home buying.
It is claimed first-time buyers will be the major beneficiaries of HIPs, but we should also consider the plight of first-time sellers who are trying to move up the housing ladder. And let’s not forget elderly homeowners who have to sell to move into smaller properties.
It should be remembered that we in the mortgage industry are not against HIPs as such. What we object to is being told to support something before it has been fully and independently tested.
Mike Fitzgerald
Brentchase Financial/The EMBA Group
