Useless and costly home seller packs

Daily Mail leader, 12th July 2006: "The idea behind the Home Information Pack was essentially sound.  It is daft and frustrating that six buyers, interested in the same property, have to commission six separate surveys.  How much better it would be if sellers paid for one survey for all would-be buyers.

There was only one possible drawback: if the HIP was overpriced, potential sellers might be discouraged from putting their homes on the market.  That could cause problems for the economy all round.  But the pluses of the scheme seemed to outweight the minuses.  That was before the Government got its fumbling, bumbling hands on it.

Now we have the worst of all worlds: a HIP that will be fantastically expensive for vendors at £1,000 - and totally useless to buyers, who will still have to commission separate surveys of their own.  Buyers have two main concerns: is the property likely to subside, and is the wiring sound?  Yet, quite incredibly, these vital facts will be left out of the HIP, masterminded by - who else? - John Prescott...

Why is it that every good idea turns to dust in this inept Government's hands?"

More here from The Mail and Download PDF of the Conservative Party's home_information_pack_campaign briefing.

Comments

[Martin]

Bang on. There has been a serious lack of adequate preparation made for the introduction of HIPs, with no substantive pilot scheme as had been originally promised. I bet that valuations and surveys will still be required anyway, since no-one will have enought confidence in the information contained in these packs.

[Simon Chapman]

err...Labour do do House-Building. All over the South-East of England on greenfield sites without thought about proper infrastructure - such as roads, schools, hospitals water supply and rainwater drainage.

[Denis Cooper]

"10. Unnecessary: The Government claims that the Packs are necessary to implement an EU Directive to provide Energy Condition Reports when a home is sold. Yet in Northern Ireland, the Directive is being implemented by the Government without the introduction of Home Information Packs."

Ah, that will be Directive 2002/91 mentioned by Christopher Booker on January 22nd:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/22/nbook22.xml#1

"Prescott plans a new disaster for house sales"

[Annabel Herriott]

Is prezza going to build on the flood plains as well, so he can say oops! when the poor buyers have to sit on the roof every time there is a serious deluge?

[Patsy Sergeant]

People will just have to get into the habit of suing the government when there are floods thats damage - not the local council, the goverment. No doubt there is some clause which says that one can't do that, but an astute lawyer could find a way round that. Just like when a paedophile or murderer reoffend, as in the Monckton case then the judiciary, or prison or probation service should be sued. Nothing like litigation to concenttrate their minds!

[ContraTory]

Conveyancing factories who have geared up for the introduction of HIPs, combined with the slump in transactions immediately following implementation, will put a significant number of "High Street" solicitors out of business or out of work. So tell me this. Where is an individual of modest means going to find a lawyer to claim recompense from the Government, or anyone else for that matter? Don't bother looking for a "legal aid practice". The Government's everlasting quest for "value for money" is about to screw them out of existence, too.

[Simon Chapman]

HIPs are no longer hip in policy terms, following today's climbdown. A good result for those conservatives campaigning against this.

[Patsy Sergeant]

No doubt it will transpire, in due course that a tidy sum has also been wasted, of OUR money, in the 'run-up' to this latest 'brilliant idea', now collapsed!!!