A third of home information packs ‘unsatisfactory’
Almost a third of estate agents provide unsatisfactory home information packs according to a survey by Birmingham Trading Standards.
Results of the study carried out at the end of last year revealed that, of the 37 packs examined, 70% were rated satisfactory or reasonably satisfactory, and 30% rated unsatisfactory when measured against the HIP regulations.
The survey set out to test approximately 25% of the estate agent market within the Birmingham boundary.
Conducted in conjunction with independent regulator the Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB), it was the most comprehensive estate agent and HIP enforcement exercise carried out since the introduction of the sellers packs in 2007.
The most common faults included: no information provided on the complaint or redress procedure; no consumer information; no company contact details; technical issues with the search; and HIP index-related issues.
PCCB chairman Richard Footitt said: ‘This exercise gives a timely and reliable insight into the current level of compliance within the industry, and should serve as a warning both to estate agents and HIP providers that they must comply with the law and regulations.’
Richard Barnett, chairman of the Law Society’s conveyancing and land law committee, said: ‘This comes as no surprise, as HIPs under the present regulations are always going to be done on the cheap, as they have no value to the buyer.’
Meanwhile, the Land Registry has confirmed a change to its new policy for billing customers for services accessed from its new portal, when it replaces Land Registry Direct in April 2010.
For those who pay by variable direct debit it will reduce the frequency of low-value collections by introducing a £50 threshold collection. The change follows feedback from customers who said its previous decision to debit accounts each time they used a Registry service would increase their bank charges.
Comments
It is about time HIPs were discarded
I am not at all surprised that the a third of HIPs were found to be unsatisfactory, but rather than concentrating on bringing the standard of HIPs up, is it not about time for the government to admit they should never have been introduced and scrap them altogether?
Working in residential conveyancing, I ask clients routinely if they have seen a copy of the HIP and the vast majority of purchasers have never seen the HIP for the property they are purchasing and the vast majority of sellers know one has been made for their property but not looked at it. HIP providers will continue to provide the packs as cheaply as possible as sellers do not want to pay for them, which will lead to unsatisfactory packs and if the buyers are not interested there just does not seem much point in the practice continuing.
The quality of the searches has improved to some extent (most local searches actually have sensible answers now rather than the standard 'information unavailable'), but there is a prevalence of personal searches used to make the HIPs cheaper which lenders will not accept so buyers will often repeat searches, so the only parties that seems to gain anything from HIPs are the HIP providers who can make money and the search providers who will end up with duplicate search fees.
Hips ...
1. where do the regulations say information has to be provided on the complaint or redress procedure [maybe they do]
2. most HIps are done by non-lawyers, so hardly suprising they are full of errors
3. why did your blog suddenly start to talk about the Land REgistry unless you are making the subtle point that they are about as good as HIPs or a chocolate fireplace
4. HIPs do help a buyr, as if the searches arein date, I have been able to submit my Property Report and ontract simply on reading the HIP when it is invariably accompanied by the Protocol forms. No extra delaying searches needed.
But selling conveyancers, one thing about HIPs - make sure you send up to date offcial copies to the Buyer and don't rely on HIP ones over say 3 months old. God knows what new mortgages your own client may have, or notices, cautions etc. You only make the buyer feel your firm is poor, and they will have no hesitattion to tell their client and the agents and you come off looking bad.
Its all about standards in this climate.