I read with interest the article by Sarah Jagger on HIPs.
The article refers to concern over gazumping. The proposals will do nothing to stop gazumping which at the end of the day is down to human nature and greed. Seller or buyer will be free to back out of the sale at any time prior to exchange of contracts as they are now. Delays will occur before a house can be marketed.

M/s Jagger refers to a structural survey that will be prepared as part of the process. The Home Condition Report with HIPs will be grossly inferior to a structural survey; indeed it may not be as detailed as some Homebuyers Reports now being prepared being mainly comprised of as series of tick boxes. In addition it may prepared by inexperienced inspectors who are new to the business of assessing defects in houses and have been released on the public by virtue of having completed a training course. The Law Society have indicated that HIPs should carry a govt financial health warning to buyers to obtain independent advice including a survey; a survey prepared for the vendor should not be trusted. Indeed the govt have stated that caveat emptor (buyer beware) will still apply.

As yet the question of Professional Indemnity Insurance for Home Inspectors has not been addressed. Insurance companies are not willing at this stage to quote for cover indeed it is unclear whether cover will be available through the usual channels. Why then would surveyors sign up for this scheme if they cannot get insurance.

Contrary to the impression that one might get from ODPM and some spokesmen for the property industry, in my experience the majority of independent estate agents, lawyers and surveyors are opposed to this scheme. Support is being driven by the large corporates who see it as a means of dominating the market and driving out competition; an easy road to a fast buck. If they achieve that domination the public will see a fast rise in the cost of homebuying and selling.

In recent press releases the Council of Mortgage Lenders, Law Society and National Association of Estate Agents have expressed grave concerns over the scheme amounting to downright opposition and criticism of govt handling from the start-the govt have not and will not listen to advice being offered from those with direct knowledge of the day to day working of the property industry. I would ask the public to reflect on the number of industries that have deteriorated through direct govt interference. This red tape and bureaucracy will de-stabilise the property market.

The number of surveyors required for this scheme is estimated at around 10,000. To date they have 2000. Why; because Chartered Surveyors who it was anticipated would have been prime candidates have largely voted with their feet in opposition.

One firm of surveyors dedicated to the pack is now advertising that they are taking applications from Old Age Pensioners to become Home Inspectors. They say that pensioners stand to earn £40,000 pa. At that rate allowing for holidays and payment of 40% share of the fee thay would have to do in excess of one survey a day every day. Few pensioners would wish to work at that rate. This seems tantamount to calling out the Home Guard in desperation. That salary is not achievable unless the market is brisk. Indications from financial pundits suggest that the market will be adversely affected by the introduction of HIPs. A career based entirely on preparing Home Condition Reports would be financially precarious. The housing market has always been seasonal and subject to peaks and troughs.

Finally the Govt have an alternative agenda here namely the need to comply with a European directive to obtain an energy audit of all homes. This is the primary reason for the survey element.

I would urge the public to express opposition to this scheme. HIPs are not the answer. Write to your MP and local paper now.