The sellers pack setbacks As the government moves ahead with the Homes Bill, Michael King examines the major concerns surrounding the proposed sellers packThe government is intent on proceeding with its Homes Bill, which contains proposals for a sellers pack.

It is generally agreed that reform is needed...The government is intent on proceeding with its Homes Bill, which contains proposals for a sellers pack.

It is generally agreed that reform is needed and there are positive aspects to the sellers pack.

Documentation up front is welcome, although it is already provided by solicitors in most transactions.

But it is essential that the contract is prepared, held and dealt with by the legal adviser.

Consumer protection dictates that a legal document is handled only by an independent legal representative.

Following a recent constructive meeting with the housing minister there is a realistic hope that the government will agree to the contract itself being excluded from the pack, which will ensure some protection for the public.However, there are other major concerns:l The concept of a sellers survey.

It is most unlikely that this will be acceptable to the buyer or since there is to be no valuation incorporated the lender.

The insistence on its inclusion considerably weakens the efficacy of the pack and adds unacceptably to the cost of the home buying process.

A third of the buyers who took part in the governments Bristol pilot commissioned their own survey.

l Criminal sanctions for a breach of the rules.

Can it be right that a criminal record might be acquired in a voluntary contractual transaction? If a sellers pack is such a good idea it will be adopted without the necessity of sanctions.

If, as I believe should be the case, the sellers pack is voluntary, the governments dilemma over low-value properties would be resolved since the seller of such a property could proceed without incurring the substantial up front costs involved in a formal pack.l Conflict of interest.

The minister has recognised that conflicts of interest especially surrounding the sellers survey could arise and must be avoided.

The need for the consumer to be protected was appreciated.

Therefore, it is to be hoped that safeguards will be built in if the proposals are to proceed.

l Inflationary pressures.

The up-front cost of the sellers pack is likely to discourage all but the most committed seller.

This will inevitably reduce the property supply and prices will rise.

The uncommitted seller will be tempted as an alternative to remortgage to realise equity which will release money into the consumer market and further stoke inflation.

It is generally recognised that a rise in house prices and the overheating of the economy will hit the anti-inflation strategy of the government.

The Law Society has successfully communicated these concerns and others to the government, having made clear its general view that the Bill is an irrelevance and will do nothing to hasten or make cheaper the home-buying process.

Is there any other threat to the public interest? The government is carrying out an in-depth survey of the part that insurance plays in the home-buying process .

There is little doubt in my mind that we are once again heading firmly in the direction of the US where realtors reign supreme and the role of lawyers is at best marginalised and at worst extinguished.

Can anything be done? It can, but it will necessitate all conveyancers espousing the concept of electronic conveyancing.

When, not if, this becomes the norm it will make the sellers pack even more superfluous.

E-conveyancing will be linked to the National Land Information Service and lawyers will be best placed to ensure that the system works.

We know that the conveyancing process relies on the trust between lawyers in facilitating exchange of contracts and completions and banks in facilitating the transfer of funds and it is this trust that will always give the profession the edge over its competitors for the market.

Michael King is a Law Society Council member and chairman of the Societys conveyancing and land law committee