The latest nonsense to emerge on Home Information Packs comes in an article in today’s Daily Star.
This time Mr Shapps is wheeled out and asked to comment on the fact there is no obligation on a seller to disclose within a Home Information Pack whether the property to be sold is haunted!
He is quoted to have branded the HIP as “utterly untrustworthy”.
He said: “Home Information Packs aren’t worth the paper they’re written on’’.
“If buyers trust these dodgy dossiers I fear they will be lulled into a false sense of security about the true state of the local neighbourhood and the property.
“Sellers have no incentive to include many types of vital information about a home, making these expensive packs utterly untrustworthy and misleading. The word ‘buyer beware’ should be branded on the front of every Home Information Pack.”
Mr Shapps is at it again! As usual the unsuspecting public is only getting half the story. The HIP can only be as good as the legal framework within which it has to operate. The English system is based on a long and well established legal obligation requiring the buyer, and not the seller, of a property to make all necessary legal and structural checks before committing to buy. It is down to the buyer, and not the seller, to make sure the property is free of legal and structural problems. If the buyer fails to make these checks and ask the right questions then generally the buyer is unable to hold the seller responsible. This principle is known as ‘caveat emptor’.
Indeed this is the very reason why those selling and buying property engage solicitors to advise on these matters.
If Mr Shapps considers HIPs are a waste of time because of this legal requirement then he should stop rattling on about how bad the HIP is and instead concentrate on coming up with measures designed to reform our antiquated home buying and selling process.
This has been the case all through the HIPs debate, a criticism that they are "useless" because they lack information that would be beneficial to a potential buyer. But as always, that leads to the follow-on that they should therefore be scrapped. Not once do any of those trying to create an argument against HIPs acknowledge, let alone propose, the simple solution that HIPs could be improved by the inclusion of those items they complain are missing.
ReplyDeleteIt is precisely the same as arguing that there are items excluded from an MOT test of a car that it would be helpful to include, therefore the MOT test should be scrapped. What is the difference? Simply that the MOT has become an established process that no-one would contemplate scrapping.
It is this blinkered resistance to change, led by people whom one would think had an interest in making home transfer process more attractive, that maintains the pig-headed refusal to accept change for the benefit of the consumer - the only "arguments" they produce are that no-one looks at HIPs (wrong), HIPs cannot be trusted (wrong); HIPs take too long to obtain (wrong, if proper suppliers are used)& they are bureaucratic red tape (wrong). How wrong can they get? And we hear so much about SPLINTA (Sellers Pack Legislation Is Not The Answer"; maybe we need another lobbying group SWITFAT. Yes, you've guessed: So What Is The Flipping Alternative Then?
Mr Shapps needs to seriously contemplate whether his dogmatism on HIPs is making him look ridiculous.
Having worked for a Personal Search Agent for 3 years, I have to agree that MANY Personal Searches are not worth the paper they are written on. The company I worked for knowingly provided false info to clients and told us "it doesn't matter, the insurance will cover any claims against us!". It was like a badge of honour to 'get one over' solictors! I tried my best to tackle them about the dishonesties for 2 years, which took a great deal of guts and was really difficult to do, eventually I felt I had no choice but to leave. I contacted Trading Standards, the OFT and even the police, sending over 100 pages of evidence showing that the company I worked for was knowingly being dishonest and were providing completely false info to clients, mainly solicitors. TS and the OFT told me "it was not an issue they could deal with" and the police told me it was too complicated to look into"(!) I ended up feeling like the criminal for reporting the frauds! The company I worked for used to do a great deal of work on behalf of most of the other other PS Agents in England & vice versa and it was clear to see that the vast majority of other PS Agents were just as dishonest. The company I worked for was seeking endorsement from the Law Society and so we were told that we had to make the best impression because we needed to change the Law Society Chairmans anti personal search views to get us much more business. I was told I could 'go home' for a short while whilst the Gentleman from the law society made a visit to the office, because they were worried I would tell him the truth! The official body that is supposed to monitor personal searches is also a complete waste of time - the police told me they only struck off bad agents as an absolute last resort! As they are paid by PS Agents for membership, they naturally stand behind these agents, dodgy or not!
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against HIPS in principle, I just think that the only people who should legally be able to compile the info are local councils, because purchasers and solicitors would be seriously shocked if they were aware of the cost cutting measures personal search agents took and the lies they are prepared to tell in order to get business.