Kirstie Allsopp and Grant Shapps - you should both feel very ashamed

Sorry for the time it has taken me to update my blog  - it  has been a very busy period... but I am now back!

The 'C' rated TV celebrity, Kirstie Allsopp, and the Yorkshire Wheeltapper and Shunters would be front man MP Eric Pickles could not resist the opportunity last week to gloat at the massive job loss, financial ruin and general misery inflicted by the government’s decision to suspend the HIP regulations.

A cheap PR stunt and one which Grant Shapps the Minister of Housing had held in the run up to the election. The only difference this time was that we were looking at the announcement of government policy.

Why wheel out Kirstie Allsopp? What has she achieved in her short TV life time to improve our ailing home buying process? Did I miss something; was she recently elected as an MP? She should be ashamed of herself getting involved in party style celebrations surrounding the wholly unnecessary demise of a well established industry employing over 3000 people.

What makes this even more difficult is the fact that it was not too long ago that Miss Allsopp was proclaiming the very same benefits that were actually being delivered by the HIP. She professes to be a housing expert but when it comes down to it she is nothing other than a hired gun. Let's wheel out Kirstie she will make the delivery of a decision which we know will destroy people’s life more palatable to the public. Sorry Kirstie you have been used and your integrity must as a result be damaged.

I wonder if Mr Pickles, who was clearly out to make a name for himself (as up until then he has was always the drummer in the band), told Kirstie when she was hired the real truth. Did he tell her that his colleague Grant Shapps had made a written commitment to the HIP industry that he would consult before taking any action to suspend? A promise which he has broken.

The word of a MP is never a reliable one, but in a government which purports to be based on the principle of fairness one just has to wonder what lies ahead for us all.

So what now? Not much really other than trying to pick up the pieces and getting on with life. Yes there will be a consideration of legal options, but at the end of the day one has to begin to accept that the industry was the victim of political spite and goal scoring. Not sure why anyone in the future will feel safe in investing time and money in any new government led venture.

One final message - let's get our party hats ready as I am sure future policy implementation for government will not be this easy! What goes around comes around!

For those interested in joining the legal action group please contact David Jones at davidjones@m-j-p.co.uk

Jumping the gun, or sheer arrogance?

On the day when the electorate goes to the polls to decide who should be the next government I find myself once again having to highlight the shortcomings of one of  my local MPs.

Picking up last week’s local property supplement I was shocked to find Chloe Smith, the local Conservative MP, passing to the public what is clearly a highly misleading statement about the Conservative’s intention to ‘scrap’ home information packs. Leaving to one side the arrogance, in line with that seen in the Times at the weekend with David Cameron preparing his diary in readiness for when he becomes Prime Minister, to say as she did, HIPs would be history within 2 weeks of her party becoming the next government was totally wrong.

There is no possible way that any government could pass legislation that quickly, even if we were talking about a government with a large working majority! Making such a statement highlights a frightening lack of knowledge of parliamentary process, as well as a total disregard to how such a statement could very well contribute to a stalling of the still delicate property market.

No one will really know until tomorrow or the weekend what is likely to happen on the political front, but if the Conservatives do succeed and are able to govern, given what is happening in Greece, and bearing in mind the much more important debt related issues, I really can not see that the HIP will be top of the target list. I may be mistaken, but if I am it really says all you need to know about Conservative priorities!

I am also startled about the failure of this recently appointed MP to make statements without thought for those within the industry working within local constituencies who through no fault of their own will be adversely affected by a policy that is now clearly out of line with current line of thinking of a growing number of property professionals. Job loss and a clueless destruction of entrepreneurship spirit simply do not register on the radar. Clearly potholes are far more important!

I say this is outdated policy because within recent weeks we have had staunch attackers of the HIP come out and say that now the HIP has had time to bed in, and as the market has recently picked up, perhaps it would be rash to simply abandon the HIP without first pausing for thought. As I have said before, ironically, if the HIP goes that the cost of moving will not decrease, but will increase by around £100. Moreover the time it takes to get into your new home will be much longer. On top of this will be the misery of a return to an increase in failed transactions and the loss of money that goes with it.

I just wish we could for once rely on a politician to tell us the whole story!

Lib Dems proposals on HIPs and EPCs lack independent thought

Dare I say it, is there a possibility of the Country waking up on Friday of next week to a Lib Dem Government? Unlikely but there is no escape from the probability that the Lib Dens will feature in some shape or from within the next administration.  So where does that leave the HIP industry and how do the Lib Dems view the HIP and EPC?

Up until the publication of the Party’s manifesto, it was understood at quiet high levels that the Party had not formed a view either way on whether the HIP should be retained.  The inclusion of a pledge to scrap the HIP within the manifesto therefore emerged as a surprise to many of us, including it is interesting to note, a high number of Lib Dem candidates.

The question of whether this unexpected pledge is down to well thought through and generally supported policy, or an over jealous central office official, has yet to be answered. What we do know however is that the future of the HIP is likely to be well down the list of priorities if as likely, we are left with a ‘balanced’ parliament.

In a letter passed to me recently written by a Lib Dem candidate we do find some further clues on the Lib Dem way of thinking on energy.  Unfortunately the author of the letter in the opening passage makes only a passing mention to HIPs commenting that they ‘play no useful role in the housing market…’ Not much there to assist but the letter does provide a quite useful insight into the Lib Dems plans for the EPC.

The good news, though given the European requirement it should come as no surprise, is the Lib Dems will retain the EPC and will require it to be produced ‘during the conveyancing process’.  Not quiet sure what this means, though I suspect the requirement will be for the EPC to be produced prior to exchange of contracts. 

Other measures mentioned in the letter which uncannily mirror some of the Tory proposals include the availability of low cost loans to bring empty and run down property back into the social housing arena, a national programme to insulate more homes, as well as a loan scheme similar to the Conservatives’ Refit proposal providing house owners with loans repayable over 25 years.

There are other measures mentioned though there is little on substance as regard compliance.  Moreover, there is bad news for the Home Inspector with the Lib Dems apparently having no plans to reintroduce the Home Condition Report. The author does not ‘…believe that they would be viewed as a credible source of information by homebuyers particularly given the confused way in which HIPs were introduced by the Government’.

This all in my views smacks of plagiarism, as much of what is contained within this letter seems to reflect Conservative policy.  It’s a shame a party that prides itself on independent thinking has had to rely on the thoughts of others, mainly it would seem at the expense of job loss and disruption within an industry that has over the past 6 months finally found its footing. 

The letter in full

‘Thank you for contacting me about Home Information Packs (HIPs) and Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs).  We do not believe that HIPs play a useful role in the housing market with the exception of Energy Performance Certificates.  We will therefore retain EPCs which we believe to be useful, simple and essential in helping reduce the 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions, which come from our homes.  We will require an EPC to be produced during the conveyancing process and we believe that this requirement will ensure full compliance with the requirement to produce an EPC.   As well as our own committment to EPCs, the requirement to produce an EPC every time a house is bought, rented or sold is also mandated under EU law.  You should therefore feel confident that the market for EPCs will continue.

Liberal Democrats have a number of proposals to improve the energy efficiency of UK homes:

• We will bring 250,000 empty homes back into use with cheap loans and grants through a £1bn Social Homes Fund that will provide grants for properties brought back into use as social housing and a £200 million Private Housing Fund that will provide low-cost loans to bring empty properties back into use in the the private sector.
• We will begin a national programme to insulate more homes paid for by the savings from lower energy bills and make sure every new home is fully energy efficient by improving building regulations.
• We will support homeowners to create warm and environmentally-friendly homes by setting up a privately funded scheme which will enable the costs of energy efficiency measures to be repaid over a period of up to 25 years. Eligible homes could be retro-fitted with home improvements costing up to £10,000 per home such as loft, wall and floor insulation, as well as energy efficient lighting, heating, windows, and doors.
• We will also launch an ‘eco-cashback’ scheme during our first year in government to give people £400 towards energy efficient home improvements and small energy generation projects. People will be able to apply for the cash to help pay for double glazing, boiler upgrades and micro generation such as solar panels, and domestic wind turbines.
• We will reduce the cost of repairs and improvements by equalising the rate of VAT on new build and repair on an overall revenue-neutral basis.

With respect to improving compliance with EPRs, I understand that non-compliance principally arises in the commercial sector.  I support efforts to ensure greater awareness of the requirements and also encourage Trading Standards to ensure that appropriate enforcement action is taken.  The law requiring EPCs for commercial properties has been in place since April 2008 and it is unacceptable that compliance falls well short of universal levels, two years after implementation.

On your final point with respect to Home Condition Survey, I do not support the mandatory introduction of these as I do not believe that they would be viewed as a credible source of information by homebuyers particularly given the confused way in whcih HIPs were introduced by the Government.

I hope that you fine the information above useful and that you are reassured of the Liberal Democrats' commitment to EPCs.

Letter to energy assessor suggests the Conservative Party has given further thought to life without HIPs

The Conservative Party is still determined to abolish the Home Information Pack but according to a recent letter received from a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate it will be the Party’s intention to ‘....introduce innovative ways to help home buyers, including speeding up the introduction of e-conveyancing and facilitating more competition in the local authority search market’.

In the same letter sent by an energy assessor in response to concern expressed about the Party’s policy on the HIP and EPC, the PPC advised that the EPC would no longer be required before marketing, with the only condition being that the EPC has to be commissioned before that stage. The PPC put this possible Party decision as following: ‘Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) would be retained, but they would last up to ten years and a home could be put on the market provided an EPC had been commissioned (rather than requiring an EPC to already be in place)’.

No cheer but at least we have a hint of the Party’s future steer on the HIP and the EPC. It’s a shame however that in the run up the election we still do not know for certain when the HIP would go if the Conservatives gain power and whether they would look to keep the HIP in place until the ‘innovative ways to help home buyers’ are put into place. It would also be good to hear whether there are plans to avoid the domestic EPC market turning into the same mess with compliance as witnessed in the commercial sector.

The truth is nobody can make any serious business plans until the election is over, and a clearer picture of the governing party or parties’ policy on matters affecting our industry emerges.

Full Letter:


We will abolish Home Information Packs. However, we will seek to introduce innovative ways to help home buyers, including speeding up the introduction of e-conveyancing and facilitating more competition in the local authority search market). Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) would be retained, but they would last up to ten years and a home could be put on the market provided an EPC had been commissioned (rather than requiring an EPC to already be in place).

EPCs would also support our Green Deal. This will give every household in Britain the right to have home energy efficiency improvements worth up to £6,500. The upfront costs will be privately financed by banks and investment funds; and repaid over a period of up to 25 years through the savings on energy bills. A typical home could see around £20 a month knocked off its bill.

In business, I believe change brings opportunity. You are already well position in the EPC market, and I would hope that the other policies in this field could be areas of expansion for your business.

Property experts overwhelmingly come out in support of the HIP

It has been so easy for Grant Shapps and the other opponents( who seem to be diminishing in numbers) of Home Information Packs to use ‘self interest’ as a weapon whenever a supporter dares to step forward with evidence and intellectual argument on why the HIP should be retained. Indeed this week saw the continuation of an argument started last week when Mr Shapps took it upon himself to challenge, on this very basis, the integrity of a poll commissioned by AHIPP and carried out by IPSOS MORI.

Mr Shapps seems however, based on news emerging yesterday, to be boxing him into a corner with this policy. In a vote of around 100 industry leaders, at The Land Data Great Housing Debate held in Westminster, only four members of the audience voted to scrap HIPs while the majority supported the motion to adapt but not scrap them.

One of those experts, David Newnes, managing director of leading estate agency chain, Your Move, said HIPs had helped stem transaction fall-throughs this year and last, with the rate of exchanges significantly improving from around 33% each month to around 42%.

This is good news for those like the Hip Reform Group who have been tirelessly campaigning over the past 12 months for the HIP to be retained and for discussion to take place on how the HIP can be improved for the benefit of the consumer.

Hopefully the strength of support shown by such a large body of property professionals will at long last begin to register on Mr Shapps’ radar.

Fall in polls relight's Grant Shapps love for HIPs

A fall in the polls was bound to be the trigger for Grant Shapps to renew his attack on the beleaguered HIP. This time we have him picking up on the results of an IPSOS MORI poll commissioned by AHIPP. In his attack which can be found HERE he picks up on the methodology and accuses AHIPP of manipulating the result by contacting people who had been engaged in the home selling process and ignoring those who had not! Not sure how he can expect a poll on home selling can be carried out without consulting with those who had not had recent experience in the process.

The statement is also misleading as it says 15% of those polled said they were deterred from selling their home. Clearly Mr Shapps (or as is more likely his researchers) have not studied the results closely as although they show that 15% were put off by the cost of the HIP, the fact is that 15% still went ahead and marketed their property!

This nonsense also comes at a time when many property professionals including estate agents Douglas and Gordon, known past contributors to the Conservative Party, have come out to say they now see the HIP in a different light and as a stage in the process which is actually helping to speed up the sale of property. The rebuttal also has no support when one looks at the latest market statistics showing property listings are now back to where they were before the HIP was introduced.

This all suggests Grant Shapps is struggling to keep up with the views of those very people he could find himself working with in the future, as well as current market trends. This does not bode well when he and his Party are asking us to vote Conservative and in so doing elevate him to the post of Housing Minister.

This outburst also smacks of hypocrisy. It was not too long ago that Grant Shapps was spearheading a campaign to find ways to improve the sale process and was actually instrumental in commissioning what was labelled as the ‘Home Buyers Review’ (SEE HERE  ). Concerned about the time it was taking to sell property Grant Shapps put together a group of experts to examine and report back on how the process could be improved. Surprise, surprise the survey was carried out but the results have never been released. Why? Well I am sure I can leave you to draw your own conclusions.

We should all be calling upon Mr Shapps to publish the results of his report rather than attack the results of a report that was commissioned by an independent and well respected survey body. We should also respond to Grant Shapps on Twitter as this was how he launched his recent attack on the HIP. Find him HERE:

Conservative HIP replacement, HIP opponent 'U' turn and the Lib Dems - what a week!

A crazy week when we saw the LibDems produce their manifesto with unexpected news of their desire to end the HIP and then soar to second place in the polls. Clearly no connection between the two, though it is a shame they saw fit to jump onto a so called populist policy when it was clear from the performance of their under rated leader, Nick Clegg, that there was no need to resort to such desperate measures.

The fact the LibDems offer something new with some independent thinking, well at least on the surface, is what makes their party an attractive option to the two main forces which are still clearly tainted by expense abuse and accusations of being too much alike. They clearly did not need to throw into a well presented manifesto a pledge that countered all signals previously given, and which was clearly not representative of the views of their membership as a whole.

It was quite ironic in one sense as the news came at the same time as an announcement within an article within the Daily Mail ( 16th April ) that contained two items of reporting that disclosed some hope for the HIP industry.

The first was news that the Conservative Party has apparently appointed property guru Kirstie Allsopp to investigate and report on a possible replacement for the HIP. The other and perhaps more significant development is news that one of the most vocal of opponents to HIPs, estate agents Douglas and Gordon, has come out and said it has changed its view now saying the HIP should remain in place as it is, surprise, surprise, helping to speed up the selling process.

Quiet a week!

Should we trust politicians who 'twitter' and jump on the populist bandwagon?

I read today a record of an interview between Channel 4 and Grant Shapps conducted on Twitter. It was rather bizarre to see a senior politician responding to questions in what often appeared as ‘text speech’.

I suppose Mr. Shapps who carries odds of 40/1 to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, considers this to be a cool method of communicating that demonstrates his connection with modern lines of communication and which he hopes will make him more attractive to the younger generation.

The fact that his Welwyn Hatfield constituency is heavily populated with students may also have a bearing on his obsession with social networking tools of this type.

Unfortunately looking at his answers its seems Mr. Shapps was more interested in demonstrating his twitter shorthand than providing meaningful responses.  In one response, which was of particular interest to me, he talked about making the stamp duty concession recently introduced by Government permanent, and about abolishing the HIP, surprisingly adding that by doing this it is his hope it will help to kick start the property market.

I can only imagine that Mr. Shapps has been so wrapped up in election campaigning, and no doubt practicing his twitter skills, that he has not seen any of the recent articles in which there have been reports from various independent sources on how market activity has returned to levels last seen before the introduction of the HIP.

Even the most ardent opponent of the HIP would find it difficult to argue otherwise; it’s a shame that a politician who could be our next housing minister is so out of touch.

Should I be surprised? Clearly not, particularly in a week when we see the LibDems jumping on the populist bandwagon by adding to its manifesto the statement of intent to abolish the HIP. Where did that come from?  There was no discussion about this at their last party conference and I know for a fact that a large number of their own members were equally surprised.

No wonder there are so many of us who are, despite efforts to understand politics and a desire to place trust, left feeling deflated and very confused. So much so, it is easy to see why a large proportion of the electorate will simply not vote. 

Politicians are driven by the desire for power and will do and say whatever they consider necessary to ensure they get their way.  As demonstrated by Mr. Shapps  obsession with Twitter, this election seems to be more about presentation and sound bites, and less about listening and responding to the concerns of the electorate.  Perhaps the time has come for us to make a stand and to engineer through tactical voting a hung parliament. This may be the only means of getting the political parties to listen to what we have to say.  

What would a hung parliament mean for the future of the HIP industry?

Opinion polls are producing further evidence that more people would prefer a hung parliament to an outright victory for either Labour or the Conservatives. Perhaps not surprising when one considers the uproar in response to the expense scandal and the lack of clarity on how the main parties intend to address the deficit problem. For many of us a hung parliament is very much an unknown entity and for those working in the HIP industry it is unclear what a hung parliament will mean when one looks at the future of the HIP.

So what is a hung parliament? In short this is the description for the situation when after an election no political party has an overall majority in the UK House of Commons. The most recent elected hung parliament in the United Kingdom was that which followed the February 1974 general election, which lasted until the October election that year. Before that the last had been following the election of 1929. Hung parliaments can also arise when slim government majorities are eroded by by-election defeats and defection of Members of Parliament to opposition parties. This happened in 1996 to the Conservative government of John Major (1990–97) and in 1978 to the Labour government of James Callaghan (1976–79).

What does this mean for the HIP industry? ‘Not sure’ is perhaps the best response as it all depends on what would happen if as is likely the Conservative Party fails to secure a sufficient swing in the vote to secure a ‘working’ majority. It is most unlikely in my opinion given the diverse political ideologies that exist. for there to be a coalition between the Conservatives and the LibDems. It is more likely to involve Labour and if this were to happen given the neutral stance ( despite the surprising manifesto pledge to 'scrap' ) adopted by the LibDems on HIPs, it would probably mean the HIP would be safe. Even in the unlikely event of a Conservative/LibDems pact I do not see the HIP ranking high enough in the list of issues to be an immediate target for action.

So in conclusion a hung parliament would not present a bad result for the HIP industry and on the contrary it may be what is needed to ensure those who have hitherto refused point blank to listen to reason and begin engaging in constructive discussion on how best to reform our out-dated home buying process.

As for the Country as a whole, looking at the last hung parliament that of Jim Callaghan, from 1976 to 1979, a period of very difficult global circumstances – high oil prices and domestic economic chaos – it wasn't in general terms a bad government.

Consumers face higher moving costs if home information packs go

The number of solicitors accepting the property searches included in the HIP has according to recent research by OneSearch Direct, a leading provider of conveyancing search information, increased to over 75%, representing huge savings in time and money for home buyers..

Three out of four home buyers now no longer have to wait for their solicitors to obtain additional property searches with the benefit of making home moving faster and less stresful. This represents a substantial improvement on the findings of similar research conducted in Spring 2009 when the figure was two out of every three homebuyers benefitted from the searches within the HIP .

Consumers also continue to benefit from a 31% drop in the cost of local searches since the introduction of HIPs. OneSearch Direct found that the cost has reduced from an average of over £134 before HIPs were implemented to less than £92 today.

Michael Tolland, Commercial Director of OneSearch Direct, said: “The figures don’t lie. While some would suggest otherwise, HIPs have incontrovertibly benefitted consumers in many ways, speeding transactions up, reducing the number that fail and, crucially, saving them money.”

 

Mike Ockenden, Director General of AHIPP, added: “There are those that continue to propound myths about the effects of HIPs saying they have increased the cost of buying and selling. These figures demonstrate the beneficial effect that HIPs are having on reducing cost and improving certainty in the stressful process of buying and selling home'

How a modified home information pack could help to make the half a million empty homes around the Country more transparent

The Guardian reported this week that Charities are demanding an urgent rethink of government housing policy after a Guardian investigation found that almost half a million homes are lying empty in the UK – ‘enough to put a roof over the heads of a quarter of the families on council house waiting lists’. The TUC has also argued for financial penalties to be imposed on owners of empty properties.

Some of this empty stock is council owned and according to the Guardian around 11,000 of the property is owned by companies/individuals based abroad.

So what can be done?

As a starter a central register of all property that has remained unoccupied for more than 12 months should be established. Such property could in the main be indentified by Council Tax records. Lower council tax is levied on unoccupied property. Once on the register the owner should be required to produce a modified home information pack on the property to include the sales statement, the PIQ and the energy performance certificate as well as a condition type property.

This modified HIP would need to be uploaded into the register and would then enable Councils and Charities to have a resource for assessing the energy rating and condition of this stock as well as identifying and encouraging the owners to make the stock available to help ease the demand for low cost housing.

The HIP could include as a standard enclosure, information sheets on available energy and general improvement grants as well as details of how owners of private property can register as council as social landlords.

The smoke and mirrors surrounding empty homes needs to be addressed and addressed soon. The cost of maintaining a central register and for producing modified HIPs for public owned property would be minimal compared with the added cost placed on Councils in dealing with and managing the shortage of housing stock and the cost of putting families up in expensive bed and breakfast establishments.

What do home Information packs, social housing and Grant Shapps have in common?

There is a simple and rather worrying connection. The policy developed and promoted by Grant Shapps on Social Housing and Home Information packs has no basis is rational thinking, and is policy that is solely driven by right winged and it must be said misplaced political ideology.

On the subject of HIPs, no weight is given to the benefit to consumer of delivery of legal information and documents at the beginning of the process, rather than weeks and often months later when the offer is communicated by the buyer. Nor is there any recognition of the lower cost of home moving the HIP has brought with it, along with the removal of that widely unwanted practice of speculative selling. The HIP has been proved to save the home owner around 1 million pounds per day in abortive costs.

A wealth of objective evidence has been delivered to Grant Shapps to show and demonstrate the advantages and benefit to the public of retaining and using the HIP to bring about badly needed reform to the home buying and selling process. Does Mr Shapps want to listen and engage with industry? – not he does not.

As with Social Housing, he has no interest other than taking steps to promote worrying Party line ideology.

No one is safe, not the private homeowner, who faces increased selling costs under a Tory administration if the HIP goes , nor the 8 million who live in social housing, and who according to an article in Today’s Guardian, appear to be heading for upheaval and higher rents.

Based on what is happening in the Tory run Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and despite cute PR and rhetoric emanating from Grant Shapps, there seems to be a real danger that the rights and interests of those living in social housing are being ignored in favour of a policy to actively reduce the stock of affordable housing, favouring instead luxury developments.

Commenting on the housing policies of these Conservative run Councils, the article by Andy Slaughter, reports:

‘It is not as if the record on low-cost home ownership is any good. This is not an attempt to help low-income families onto the property ladder or create mixed communities, as the Tory PR would have you believe. It is a straightforward act of gentrification, of "sweating the asset", as they put it, to replace low-density estates of people on low and middle-income with high-density luxury development, stopping for a little gerrymandering on the way.

Caught off-guard, the language the Tories use says it all. The minutes of their brainstorming meetings which I obtained last year include these gems: "knock it down and start again"; "it's hard to get rid of people" and "only a very few people need some form of physical social housing ... possibly less than 10% of national stock".

The problem with all of this is that is becoming contagious with the Article noting that other Conservative run Boroughs are adopting a similar policy. Where will it end and more importantly if the Conservatives become the next Government what will lies ahead for every council and social housing tenant?

The public needs to know the facts on all aspects of proposed Tory housing policy. Apart from repetitive statements to the effect that the HIP will go, and meaningless sound bites of what the Tories intend to do to help low income families onto the property ladder, there is little by way of substance in what Shapps says. The truth is the detail is not for public consumption, at least in the run up the election. This is a dangerous game for the Tories to play as they should not underestimate the intelligence of the voting electorate.

Beware of the Conservative Party as your business could be next!

Even as a hardened businessman who has seen so much over the last 20 years or so, and who is rarely surprised by the many obstacles thrown my way, I am I must say wholly and completely frustrated by the uncertainty politics and those working in the political field can create.

However good you may be at making decisions and generally running a business the only aspect of working life that is impossible to legislate against is the vagaries of Government policy.

In the run up to a general election and with the likelihood of seeing the establishment of a Conservative Government, my business in line with thousands of other similar and successful businesses based around the Country, faces the prospect of closure and having to make that awful decision of implementing redundancy, for no reason other than the political whim of certain power driven MPs.

Do they care? Not in the slightest. Just because a policy decision has negative and often drastic ramifications in certain areas of business is not enough it would seem to make the collective of a political party pause and to consider alternative and less devastating measures.

The policy of the Conservative Party to ‘scrap’ HIPs is a classic example of this blinkered approach to policy making. I know there are many who support this decision and others who are not interested either way. However forgetting the merits or otherwise of the policy, the point is that the fall out of the implementation of that policy for those in business, or tied in as suppliers to that business, is to a large extent wholly irrelevant to the policy maker. Acceptable collateral, I suppose.

The question is whether it is in the present climate of sleaze and mistrust,  right and proper to put so much faith in those in those charged with making these decisions. Can they be trusted and irrespective of Party line is it right for local MPs of that Party to be dismissive of the business interests of those based within the MP’s constituency just because of national Party line decisions?

I have spoken with both the newly appointed Conservative MP for Norwich North and the Prospective Conservative candidate for Norwich South. The MP was friendly enough, though it was clear from the brevity of the meeting and the glancing at the watch that she saw my plea for help as nothing other than a move provoked by self interest. On the subject of making my work force redundant, most of whom are young and who have mortgages, her reaction was indifferent in the extreme. It’s a shame for someone entering politics so young and who has ahead of her a long career in politics to adopt such a hardened and politically insular approach in her dealings with her constituents.

Why was it too much to ask for her help and for the bravery shown by her colleague in South Norwich who in complete contrast was helpful, sympathetic and showed keenness to take on the ‘fight’. Unfortunately however this also proved short lived. Not sure why, though I suspect he was told to fall into line and adopt the Party stance.

It is a shame that those who claim to care about local business can be so dismissive of concerns about job loss and the total destruction of the entrepreneurial spirit that led to the establishment of our business and the creation of jobs that has clearly benefited the local economy. What does this tell you about the Conservative Party?

Perhaps I should not be that surprised when the more senior members of the Conservative Party who pull and control the strings attached to the Party’s local representatives, seem to know little better. In a letter addressed to energy assessor who wrote with concern over the threat to his livelihood, Ken Clarke the Shadow Business Minister, had the audacity to reply by suggesting that the assessor should have known better:

‘There was obviously a political risk when your husband began his training and as they (HIPs) were criticised heavily from the moment that they were introduced’.

In other words you were a stupid man for entering a new industry that the Government of the day had set up but which for no reason other than a different view on the policy, the Conservative Party disapproved! It’s ridiculous.

I know I will receive little sympathy in certain quarters, however I hope the above will convince some that even though the loss of the HIP Industry will not have earth shattering ramifications, it is an industry comprising of ordinary hard working people who could because of an explicable political game being played by the Conservative Party, face the stress and personal tragedy of redundancy. Does a Party that prides itself in promoting new business on the one hand and then has little concern for unemployment on the other deserve your vote?

This is a serious question and one that should be taken into account when voting as the next business in line for political destruction could very well be yours or that of your employer.

Conservative Party's Policy on home information packs poses threat to first time buyers

Great news about the stamp duty, and though there will always be those who are never pleased, surely the industry as a whole must take time to acknowledge this move as a welcomed measure and one that will clearly benefit the first time buyer.

Leaving to one side the politics of the decision, it is clear the Government is keen to do all it can to maintain the improvement seen within the property market.

Now help has been given to the first time buyer, and as this will make it cheaper for the first time buyer to move, we must all do all we can to ensure Grant Shapps is not allowed to undo all of this good work by proceeding with his illogical policy of scrapping home information packs.

By doing so the money the first time buyer saves on stamp duty would clearly be lost or at least diminished by the added cost the first time buyer would face in having to pay for property searches.  As we know the first time buyer saves on this cost, as the searches are included in the HIP.

The removal of the HIP would also see an immediate rise in the legal cost of moving home with certain personal search companies itching to put prices up the moment the HIP goes.  Buyers including first time buyers could see legal cost increasing by at least £100 in some areas.

Now the first time buyer has an actual and tangible incentive to proceed let us not allow the political misguidance of the Conservative Party to cause damage to a fragile but fast improving property market. 

Upturn in property market questions validity of Grant Shapps' policy on HIPs

For the past year or so Grant Shapps and the other anti-HIP lobbyists have continually banged on about how the home information pack should go because it is deterring homeowners from placing their property on the market.   Grant Shapps claims the £199 or so presently charged by many for a HIP is causing homeowners to think twice and has as a consequence caused the housing market to stall.

Indeed, it was only a couple of days ago that the National Association of Estate Agents was calling for a suspension of the HIP because it was not helping first time buyers. All very bizarre when the first time buyer pays nothing for the benefits of the HIP.  

Those who support the HIP have never understood the logic behind this argument and have for sometime now looked upon this rhetoric as nothing other than unfounded and often inexplicable political sound bites.

Claims that the property market was being brought to its knees by the humble HIP have always been viewed by rational property professionals as ridiculous in the extreme, and with news breaking this week of the property market returning to normal, it is hard to see where this will leave the credibility of those who have consistently voiced such nonsense.

According to housing intelligence group Hometrack, Estate agents in England and Wales reported a 5.6% jump in the number of properties they had on their books during March,

The group said the supply of homes on the market had already jumped by 10.2% during the first two months of the year, compared with a rise of only 7% during the whole of 2009.

Richard Donnell, Hometrack's director of research, said: "Talk of improved market conditions and prices returning to near peak levels in some markets is encouraging a growing number of households to sell their properties. Many registered buyers are also sellers, and as they gain the confidence to move, so they need to put their homes on the market. Overall, it seems that we are moving from a sellers' market back towards something more akin to normal market conditions."

Hopefully evidence of this that is devoid of self interest bias will mark an immediate end to the calls for the HIP to be ‘scrapped’ and will serve to vindicate a beleaguered industry of well intentioned property professionals. 

Does the National Association of Esate Agents truly care about the first time buyer?

The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) called upon the Government today to take measures in tomorrow’s budget to help first time buyers get a step onto the housing ladder. On the face of it a good call as we would all like to see help given to the first time buyer. However the measures suggested highlight an alarming lack of understanding of the basic and fundamental mechanics of home buying. The statement issued also raises the question of whether the view of the NAEA is fully representative of that of the majority of its members.

Reduction in the stamp duty threshold, and the introduction of a home buyer credit scheme similar to the one introduced in the US, are as one would expect the headline statements of this annual and very predictable press release. Peter Bolton King, chief executive of the National Association of Estate Agents, enlightens us with the statement:

“First-time buyers are central to a properly functioning housing market so it makes good economic, social and political for Mr Darling to consider a one-off stimulus for first-time buyers, similar to the incentive scheme in the United States'

Nothing startling here, though the statement goes on and calls for home information packs to be suspended? Why I ask, when the HIP, as Mr Bolton King knows full well, or should know given his position, actually benefits the first time buyer, and better still, costs the first time buyer absolutely nothing! In fact the first time buyer by reason of the HIP pays less for the legal work involved in buying the property!

I also question whether those running the NAEA posses a clear mandate from their members on the issue of the HIP. There is a growing swell of support amongst agents for retaining the HIP, and as the NAEA has yet to poll its members on the HIP, the credibility of a policy statement of this type must be seriously questioned.

Moreover, it seems there is little communication between the so called ‘wise men’ heading the NAEA as it was not too long ago that the chairman of the NAEA was publically writing how good the HIP regulations were because they provide well needed consumer protection!!

It is clear from this inconsistency in approach, the lack of clear mandate, and the recklessness of not recognising the benefit of the HIP to the first time buyer, that the call by the NAEA to suspend HIPS can only be viewed with great suspicion. Perhaps this can only lead one to conclude that the statement asking for the HIP to be suspended is politically motivated.

Home Information Pack knocker changes strategy

The anti-hip brigade argues and has argued for sometime that the home information pack acts a bar that restricts the flow of property available for marketing.

I have never understood this argument. Nor have I ever seen any independent evidence to support this contention. In fact all anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise. The majority of agents with whom I speak are happy with market conditions and are even happier that the customers marketing their property are serious about selling. This has saved cost on marketing and has generally I am told led to a far better return on marketing expenditure.

Deep down I consider most agents do not believe in this argument, and as previously reported believe the time has come to acknowledge the HIP is here to stay and to see what can be done to improve the HIP.

Indeed it was only yesterday that one of the most vocal of opponents Nick Salmon wrote that he is now looking for the reinstatement of first day marketing as he beginning to believe the HIP will be around in the future.

He is calling on agents to hedge their bets on the possible result of the general election by signing up to his campaign’s petition on the Number 10 Downing Street website. The petition seeks the restoration of ‘First Day Marketing’ and has already attracted over 1,400 signatures.

Knowing some agents view the HIP as an established and welcomed stream of revenue and I believe this will be shown to the case if as I understand the case to be, NAEA proceeds with a survey of its members.

I personally do not consider Grant Shapps and the Conservative Party can continue to rely on the support of the majority of estate agents, and as I have questioned before, surely the time has now come for the Conservative Party not to make the same mistake it has with its planning policy, and to take immediate steps to begin listening to stakeholders and to modify its HIP policy accordingly.

Invite to Grant Shapps to 'think outside of the box' on HIP policy

One of the main flaws in the Conservative Party policy on home information packs is the complete absence of ‘forward thinking’ and a reluctance to engage in the art of ‘thinking outside of the box’.

Persistently highlighting the perceived negativity of the HIP is easy and perhaps explains the frequency of the anti-HIP sound bites. However the reluctance to back this up with credible explanation as to why it would not be better to retain and evolve, rather than to ‘scrap’, only serves in my mind to expose and highlight an underlying problem with Conservative Party policy generally.

Nobody likes change and the safe course for a party in opposition to navigate in the run up to a general election is to say as little as possible, and to focus instead on knocking and highlighting perceived flaws in Government policy. Is this however a convention that still applies and more importantly works when with the scandals surrounding MP expenses has led to a major and unprecedented change in the electorates’ expectations. They are fed up about hearing how bad the Government is doing and are far more interested in hearing detail of the policy the Conservative and other political parties propose to introduce in the hope of making things better. In not recognising and tuning into this vein of public feeling the Conservative Party after a good start is beginning to suffer the consequences. The polls are narrowing and the Conservative Party is struggling to recover the lead it enjoyed this time last year.

I am sure further policy detail will follow once the party manifesto is released but will this prove too late in the day to save the slide that is currently in progress.

The Conservative’s Party policy on the HIP is a good example of this lack of foresight. Grant Shapps has constantly proclaimed the HIP as representative of what is bad with this Country, namely that we have too much regulation, and that there is a need for this bureaucracy to be reduced. Strangely enough I agree, though to use the HIP as a ‘flag ship’ without considering and judging the HIP on its own merits and potential is on an intellectual plane inexplicable and is hardly consistent with a political party that prides itself in formulating ‘progressive policy’.

As with most areas of life people are less interested, and indeed turned off, as to why some area of the home selling and buying process is not working, and are far more stimulated in hearing about constructive thoughts and views on what can be done to bring about long overdue improvement. The reason for this is simple – it demonstrates knowledge and insight and more importantly inspires confidence. We are all desperate to have a Government that is progressive, that is looking to make positive changes for the good and is driven by creative thinking people.

So here are some friendly pointers for Grant Shapps in the hope he has the necessary courage the break the mould and to take a lead in demonstrating that not all Conservative MPs are insular in their thinking and vision for the future.

How about embracing the compulsion element of the HIP delivery and make positive use of the opportunity this provides, not only for speeding up the home buying and selling process, but for the distribution of consumer related public information.

At present the majority of sellers and buyers will encounter the HIP so why not make more use of the opportunity it presents for the targeted delivery of public information sheets on for example:

• Flood plains, on what services and grants are available to assist with plan prevention, and on available insurance schemes.

• Energy Improvement - how can a seller and buyer use the recommendation report tied in with the EPC to bring about carbon emission reducing improvements? What public funded schemes are available and how can these be accessed.

• The Conservative ‘Energy Refit’ Scheme – what better way of getting this policy delivered to its targeted audience than to include information and contact details within the HIP?

• Re-possession - Housing Minister John Healey said the government is putting an extra £2.5 million into support and advice services in 86 repossession ‘hot spot’ areas. Grant Shapps comments that the number of re-possessions for the year is up by 15 on 2009. Irrespective who is right here the fact is that most people would agree the more information that can be delivered up front on this issue the less stressful this whole experience could be for the many unfortunate householders.

Thinking outside the box is not difficult and by turning something that is perceived by some as ‘bad’ into a ‘good’ and consumer friendly product, takes far more skill and foresight and must without doubt court a far positive response to the quickly fading message of being a party ‘for change’.

Why the Home Information Pack will survive

At the beginning of its life the HIP was a bit of a joke, a constant target for derision and a football for political parties to kick around with whenever housing issues arose and goals needed to be scored.  It was easy then as the property market was in decline and property experts found it convenient to apportion blame in the direction of the HIP

One of the big problems then was the lack of knowledge of the product and the tendency we have in this country to resist and reject ‘change’.   Added to this was a far larger problem and one that I believe may deter future government from making any further attempt to reform the home buying and selling process. I am taking here of the vested interest that runs throughout the property industry and which is so strong and cancerous in its application.

The current Government is often criticised for the poor way in which it implemented the HIP legislation.  There is no denying that the Government did little to endear the public to the HIP by launching the HIP in such a shambolic way, however give credit where credit is due, this was a government looking to make change to the home buying and selling process that was last changed back in 1925!

Implementation and the way this unfolded should also be viewed against a backdrop of stakeholder discontent that was best illustrated by the unprecedented, and perhaps politically motivated, legal action taken by RICS.  Unhappy about the introduction of energy assessors and of how this was going to impact on the residential faculty within their membership, RICS decided to challenge Government and the will of the legislative by claiming Government has not consulted adequately on the ‘gold plating’ of the Energy Directive.   Though the action was probably from a technical point of view justified it was clear that RICS by not having exclusive control over the delivery of the home condition report (which incidentally they do in Scotland) was determined to derail the HIP.

A classic and destructive example of the way in which vested interest can work to challenge well intentioned reform and reform that was aimed at making the home buying and selling process more transparent for the benefit of the consumer.

So what has changed and why will the HIP survive?

To begin with market conditions have changed.  More property is coming to the market, which has made it more difficult for the HIP to be used by anti-HIP proponents to point at it as a credible cause.  More importantly however is that the benefits of the HIP are beginning, with increased volumes to be noticed, by both consumer and property professionals.  The HIP has never really had a chance to prove itself until now. More and more estate agents are beginning to see the true worth of the HIP with faster transaction times and a reduction in aborted sale transactions.  In the ‘bad times’ agents cried out for the return of the speculative seller. There was no logic, just desperation given the grim picture most agents faced. But now they are busy, properties are selling and with the added benefit they are making extra revenue on the back of the HIP. A ‘win, win’ situation. 

This had a knock on effect as agents seeing the importance of the role of the HIP within their businesses are beginning to take the time to explain the purpose of the HIP to their customers and this in turn is helping the HIP gain a better image with consumers.

The shift in the way the HIP is viewed is not just my view.  In recent months we have had the OFT releasing the results of a survey of consumers and concluding when looking at the HIP that on balance the view was that it should be retained.  This was then followed by an open letter from the National Association of Estate Agents who stated that they saw the HIP regulations as providing protection to the consumer.

There is still sometime to go before other stakeholders climb off the fence and declare their views.   This is understandable as many do not wish to blot their copybook with Grant Shapps given the possibility he may be the next housing minister.

I am sure however that if we do have a Conservative Government that these stakeholders will during consultation view the HIP in a different light given improved market conditions and the undoubted fact that the HIP is now fast becoming an accepted part of the home selling and buying process. Many stakeholders, whether they are estate agents, lawyers, energy assessors, surveyors are all beginning to see the benefits of the HIP and are acknowledging that it would be a backward step to scrap.  The importance now is for these professionals to get this message through to those who run their trade associations and to make sure their voice is heard over and above the political will that often moulds policy.

Talk of adding cost to the process and of the HIP presenting a barrier to selling is no longer credible and with the consumer becoming increasingly aware that sale costs will rise if the HIP goes, it will take a brave (or misguided) political party to continue to view the HIP as a ‘vote winner’.

Kirstie Allsopp, Grant Shapps advisor,expresses concern about long transaction time on property sales

How interesting it was to read in the latest edition of John Lewis’s ‘Edition’ that Kirstie Allsopp apparently advises Grant Shapps on housing issues. Even more revealing was the concern she has about the time it takes for a transaction to reach the stage of exchange of contacts, and how she feels that the process is need for reform.

In the article she says:

‘I am working with him [Grant Shapps] on how to make buying and selling a house easier. The time from offer to exchange has doubled in the last 20 years, which is ridiculous, given that we’ve got email, e-banking – everything that should make the process faster. The fact that it has become more difficult and time consuming makes me very angry’

Hopefully in her capacity as Grant Shapps advisor the property industry will be able to rely on Kirstie to support the moves being made by supporters of the home information pack to take the HIP and to evolve it into an ‘exchange ready’ product. Independent evidence has already shown that by including more legal information and documents within the HIP will help to reduce transaction time even further and more importantly take the stress out of moving home.

Having refused to listen to the proponents of exchange ready HIPs perhaps Grant Shapps will be influenced more by the concern and words of wisdom spoken by his very own advisor. To do otherwise must throw doubt on a well founded opinion expressed by this well respected television spokeswoman.

Conservative Party - New spokesman on HIPs?

Ex-banker James Duddridge, Member of Parliament for Rochford and Southend East, in questions to the Secretary of State for Communities, asked the Minister if will make it his policy to suspend or abolish home information packs.

Hardly a novel question and one which Mr Duddridge has clearly stolen from Grant Shapps top 5 questions to ask Government.

In answering ‘No’ Ian Austin, (Minister of State (the West Midlands), Regional Affairs; Dudley North, Labour) responding on behalf of the Government told Mr Duddridge:

‘Despite the difficulties in the housing market, HIPs are helping to speed up the process. A survey of 37,000 transactions showed that when a HIP is available, exchanges were completed more quickly. I accept that HIPs were criticised following their introduction in 2007, but we listened to those criticisms and have made major changes to improve the system, introducing the new property information questionnaire containing basic information that buyers said that they wanted; improving the quality of searches; binding in the practice of using insurance; and providing that HIPs must be available when marketing starts’.

Not happy with this Mr Duddridge commented:

‘Home Information Packs have been a total failure and yet the Government refuses to listen to the industry professionals and home-buyers and sellers who believe that they restrict the supply of houses to the market and slow down the process of buying or selling a property.

It is unfortunate that the Minister has not looked at the case of Northern Ireland, which has shown that Energy Performance Certificates can be introduced without the need for a Home Information Pack. If elected to government we would scrap the Home Information Pack to remove this costly and damaging barrier to the housing market.’

Mr Duddridge as being a newcomer to the issue of HIPs, and who was clearly doing his best to help the besieged and overworked Grant Shapps, clearly had not undertaken his homework before commenting. If he had taken the trouble so to do he would have found that there is a major problem with compliance within Northern Ireland where one out of every two properties is marketed without a HIP. Research would have also disclosed to him that the HIP has not caused extra cost and is not, as is now recognised by the NAEA,  a ‘damaging’ barrier to the housing market.

Perhaps Mr Duddridge should stick to banking and commenting on environment, food and rural affair issues ( he is a member of the EFRA's Committee ) unless of course David Cameron is lining him up to replace Grant Shapps as the next  housing minister?