Buying a property can be an arduous process at the best of times, but the introduction of Home Information Packs could worsen the situation.

Chris Baker looks at the pros and cons

It is said that buying a home is one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through.

But government plans to simplify the process could make it even more difficult - or they could create an as yet largely unnoticed new market for lawyers.

One of the main bones of contention in the Housing Bill - which the recent Queen's speech confirmed is firmly on the government's legislative agenda - comes in the form of controversial proposals for home information packs (HIPs), formerly known as seller's packs.

Estate agents, lawyers, surveyors and lenders all agree that the idea is fine in principle, but the legislation itself is flawed and could hinder the process.

In the summer, the select committee overseeing the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) agreed, warning that more work needs to be done on HIPs before the Bill gets a second reading (see [2003] Gazette, 24 July, 5).

More recently, the Law Society property section's annual conference was warned that solicitors will face increased competition from estate agents and surveyors for the legal side of house buying (see [2003] Gazette, 6 November, 4).

The government is worried that buying a home is 'fraught with delays and failed transactions'.

It maintains the problem lies in the fact that key information affecting the decision to buy and sell only becomes available when the terms have been negotiated and agreed.

The packs, it says, will ensure that this information will be available up front.

Therefore, HIPs will become compulsory, and the seller will have to carry the cost.

At the moment, only 20% to 30% of buyers take out an independent homebuyer survey and valuation, with the rest relying on the lender's valuation, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML).

A compulsory HIP would include a home condition report, so around 70% to 80% of transactions would face an additional cost equal to the difference between the price of a home condition report and a lender's valuation.

The CML says the cost of the home condition report has not been assessed properly and that its actual cost may be around 370.

The Law Society, which argues that the e-conveyancing revolution will ease the house-buying process far more effectively than HIPs, estimates that the packs will cost around 500.

Chief executive Janet Paraskeva warns they could 'have an extremely adverse effect on poorer homeowners'.

There is some disagreement between conveyancing lawyers about the effectiveness of HIPs.

John Heller, chief executive of bulk conveyancer Hammonds Direct, says: 'I think HIPs are going to be expensive and time consuming.

Some legal input is going to be required whether you sell the house or not.'

But he thinks surveyors may take on most of the work.

'The lawyers' contribution is going to be less, but it does depend on what the government says is going to be required of the packs,' he adds.

Mr Heller is uncertain that a HIP will speed up the process.

He is also concerned about how long the packs will remain valid if a buyer drops out, or if there is a lull in the housing market.

'If you decide to take your home off the market and then decide to put it back on at a later date, how long is the document valid for?' he asks.

'They could be valid indefinitely, or for three or six or nine months.

If that is the case, then you will have to pay for a new one, and if the house is not sold in time, another.

This could lead to much more expense.'

London-based sole practitioner Ian Lithman is more strident.

'It's a madhouse,' he says of the government's plans to hasten HIPs.

'It's totally unreasonable and probably unworkable and it's unconscionably costly as well,' he complains.

'It will achieve nothing rather than more delay.'

The report will have to be updated around every three months and 'searches at an average cost of 300 are not cheap', he says.

Having to carry out local authority searches at around 200 would further add to the burden.

Mr Lithman also maintains that, in many cases, neither party wants to rush the sale through.

'The purchaser sometimes wants to think things through, come back and have another look, talk to neighbours, look at schools and things like transport,' he says.

'And there is information not in the packs, such as developments taking place beyond 200 metres of the home, that could seriously affect the value.'

And the vendor might find that someone else comes along and offers more money for the home.

'Not to gazump as such, but the original valuation may be wrong.'

But the HIP does have its defenders.

Paul Clark has recently moved back into private practice after working as national conveyancing manager at estate agency Your Move, and is now an associate at Newcastle-based law firm Ward Hadaway.

He has also liaised with the ODPM on strategic developments, and was a member of its e-conveyancing taskforce.

He supports HIPs on paper, but admits there are problems putting the packs into practice.

'There are so many commercial stakeholders with different agendas,' Mr Clark says.

'Estate agents are traditionally the first place anyone goes to when buying a home, so they are in a good position to arrange everything from the mortgage to insurance, but are now worried they are going to lose that advantage,' he explains by way of example.

'In time I think it will build into a good system, but the initial tests have now got to be made,' Mr Clark says.

'It should really be launched as a finished product, but estate agents, surveyors, lawyers and lenders all have different views and their own part in the marketplace.'

He warns that the legal profession could be sidelined if it is not careful.

'Lawyers are going to have a very, very limited role - all they have to do is produce the title and anybody can produce a title,' he says.

'Without the certificate of title, there will be no work for lawyers.'

In other words, lawyers should get in there and produce HIPs for their clients.

'We could actively seize the opportunity and become creators of the packs, facilitate their production and almost sell them to the estate agents,' Mr Clark says.

'That's what some of the cleverer bulk conveyancers will do.

They have wide enough distribution channels and links with the lenders.

'You could say that it's a much bigger market to produce packs so forget conveyancing - get the money from producing packs instead.'

Michael Garson, Law Society Council member for residential conveyancing and a fellow ODPM consultee, is another supporter, though he also admits problems in the legislation as it stands.

'[HIPs] will totally change the way we approach the work,' he warns.

Vendors will not be able to market a home without information about its quality, and estate agents will have to buy that information in.

'If lawyers don't get into the business of providing it, then someone else will,' Mr Garson predicts.

'Estate agents are not capable of providing quality information and a significant part of that could be down to the lawyer - the lawyer could write everything in the pack apart from room size, because he doesn't measure them, or the condition report, which would be done by the surveyor.'

Lawyers could miss a trick, Mr Garson fears: 'The profession could easily end up being marginalised - that's the major threat.

Other commercial organisations that provide business information will take up the opportunity.'

His message to lawyers is: 'Wake up and ask the Law Society to help.'

In fact, moves are already being made to capitalise on the packs.

Consultant National Energy Services (NES) recently acquired surveyors' training firm SAVA to offer accredited courses to the 7,500 home inspectors the ODPM estimates will be needed to compile the home condition reports required by the packs.

The Law Society says these inspectors should be required to carry some form of indemnity insurance to protect consumers.

NES expects to be ready by the time the fledgling legislation receives Royal Assent.

It is almost certain that somebody, somewhere, is making similar plans for drawing up the packs themselves.

Lawyers could, it seems, miss out on a lucrative new area of work by rejecting the packs outright.

Chris Baker is a freelance journalist