Grant Shapps' home information pack boomerang!

We should all know by now that Grant Shapps and his colleagues within the Conservative Party do not like Home Information Packs because they believe they cost too much and are also a prime example of the unnecessary bureaucracy introduced by the Labour Party.

Rational thought is given secondary importance. The fact they bring greater transparency and certainty to a very uncertain process, as well as speeding up the sale process is it seems of little interest. Instead political ideology lies as the heart of the obsession.

In trying to argue that the HIP is not a completely bad idea and that there are aspects that could be taken and used as a basis for reform one is often met with the accusation of ‘self interest’ and ridiculous assertions such as ‘no one wants them’. True as it may be that the HIP is a completely misunderstood part of the legal process of selling property, there is no independent evidence to suggest the consumer would be better off without the HIP.

One problem we have is that the HIP has only been around for a short period of time and has had to operate in very difficult times and has therefore had little chance to prove itself. It is for this reason that perhaps we should look further afield and to see whether there is evidence from abroad that could help.

In New South Wales in Australia there exists a similar obligation to that which exists within the HIP regulations. The legislation there requires a vendor to have a draft ‘listing contract’ prepared and made available along with other documents such documents equivalent to our proof of title and searches before a property can be offered for sale to the public. Failure to attach any of the required documents means that the buyer has the right to rescind the contract and recover the deposit within 14 days of the exchange of the contract.

The purpose of the legislation is to have a contract with all relevant particulars and attachments at the point of sale, to shorten the time for a formal exchange of contracts, once a buyer is located. Sound familiar?

The Australian experience speaks for itself. The process is a successful one. By delivering the information and documents ‘upfront’ the average transaction time is between 3 and 4 weeks as opposed to the 8 to 10 weeks imposed upon us in this country. This is strong evidence to support the retention of the HIP and for further reform to be introduced on the back of it. Let us hope that the HIP will prove to be Grant Shapps’ boomerang – a HIP that keeps coming back to haunt him however hard he tries to throw it away