Have been talking to a couple of estate agent contacts over the last two weeks about all things HIP. One said he had been approached by a Pack Provider who suggested that their Home Inspectors would be doing up to 5 surveys per day. So much for careful assessment.This is equivalent to the numbers expected of some mortgage valuers for a basic mortgage valuation. Another agent was pestered by a Provider to 'road test' the pack. Although opposed to the whole principle of HIPs he decided to let them have a go, bearing in mind that it was a free offer. Apparently the Home Inspector completely missed asbestos in the bungalow inspected. If this comes in it doesn't bode well for the consumer.
If Hips is not dropped altogether, I predict a cut down version will go through in 2007. Minus the survey and perhaps also the local search. The cut down hips will still offer a draft contract, answers to standard enquiries, fixtures and fittings list, which in itself will help expedite the conveyancing process.
Originally posted by BrixMorta: If Hips is not dropped altogether, I predict a cut down version will go through in 2007. Minus the survey and perhaps also the local search. The cut down hips will still offer a draft contract, answers to standard enquiries, fixtures and fittings list, which in itself will help expedite the conveyancing process.
It is certainly the survey element that is causing the controversy. I think some of the objections would be removed if it was taken out. It would be very useful for surveyors acting for buyers to have legal info up front that we could check out on site. As for speeding up the proces though I doubt that. Problems such as delays relating to chains and unpredicatable behaviour from buyers and sellers and mortgage delays would still be there. it will be intersting to see how much the forthcoming Private Members 10 Minute Rule Bill from MP Ian Liddell Grainger stokes up the debate.
The survey element isn't the worst part of it though. That can be fixed if neccesary.
What will have a more serious effect is the number of available properties for sale. HIPS will make people think even harder before putting their house on the market. Typically people put their house up for sale to see what they can get for it, and then start looking at what they can then afford. This is a big part of the house market, people making decisions on a whim.
With fewer houses the scarcity of properties will have an effect on asking prices, 1st time buyers think it's impossible now, wait until HIPS comes into full force! Add to that people will want to recoup the money spent on the HIP, and will add that to the asking price.
And of course it doesn't solve the most financially crippling part of the process, the Gazumping. OK, so you will have forked out less to get to the point of agreeing the sale, but you will still have some fees to pay, and lets be honest, if somebody came along and offered to pay more, that would cover the cost of the HIP. If you know what I mean!
This is a Government designed farce dreampt up by someone who has no idea of reality to try and punish all the businesses that are involved in the process. But by it's very design, it will actually hurt the buyer more financially than our current flawed process.
One said he had been approached by a Pack Provider who suggested that their Home Inspectors would be doing up to 5 surveys per day.
That's about as good as those dodgy house-buying companies. With that depth of enquiry, the mortgage company will simply ask for another survey on top. Very nice for the surveyors...
I do wonder if this idea will go the way of the "put property, art, etc into your pension fund" reforms... ditched at the eleventh hour. Or delayed for very good administrative reasons and then quietly forgotten. This is purely cynicism talking, not even in-depth knowledge. I simply think it is too big a change and not practically thought through. And as someone said earlier, won't even address gazumping.
The only way it would be remotely useful would be a modified version that included the basic LA searches and radon gas reports. But if you didn't sell your house within a few months, even those could be out of date. The packs seem to be predicated on a system where solicitors, banks, buyers and sellers spring into action and the whole process takes about 28 days from soup to nuts. And, as we all know, it just isn't like that
One said he had been approached by a Pack Provider who suggested that their Home Inspectors would be doing up to 5 surveys per day.
That's about as good as those dodgy house-buying companies. With that depth of enquiry, the mortgage company will simply ask for another survey on top. Very nice for the surveyors...
The council of mortgage lenders have already said they wont accept the HCR bundled with HIPs as a basis for lending; indeed the HCR does not include a valuation, which is the very reason for the mortgage survey. Incidentally a majority of Chartered Surveyors in the field have always been opposed to the survey element as in our view it breaches the principle of conflict of interest.
Originally posted by stateofplay: The survey element isn't the worst part of it though. That can be fixed if neccesary.
What will have a more serious effect is the number of available properties for sale. HIPS will make people think even harder before putting their house on the market. Typically people put their house up for sale to see what they can get for it, and then start looking at what they can then afford. This is a big part of the house market, people making decisions on a whim.
With fewer houses the scarcity of properties will have an effect on asking prices, 1st time buyers think it's impossible now, wait until HIPS comes into full force! Add to that people will want to recoup the money spent on the HIP, and will add that to the asking price.
And of course it doesn't solve the most financially crippling part of the process, the Gazumping. OK, so you will have forked out less to get to the point of agreeing the sale, but you will still have some fees to pay, and lets be honest, if somebody came along and offered to pay more, that would cover the cost of the HIP. If you know what I mean!
This is a Government designed farce dreampt up by someone who has no idea of reality to try and punish all the businesses that are involved in the process. But by it's very design, it will actually hurt the buyer more financially than our current flawed process.
Fully agree with what you say Stateofplay. My initial post also highlights that the scheme is already being hijacked by cowboys as Sarah Treacher for the Liberals predicted, if of course it goes through. Please, all those of you who are opposed, do EMail your MPs in support of the private members bill being introduced by Ian Liddell Grainger to repeal the HIPs element of the Housing Act.
Originally posted by reverand: IF less people put their properties on the market due to SIPS, then surely there will be less people looking to buy (less movers)?
Maybe but the two cancel each other out, i.e. sellers are buyers and buyers are sellers leaving first timebuyers, or those who have already sold and moved into rented accom temporarily, seeking too few houses. Shortage of supply in relation to demand = higher prices.
Originally posted by Rising Damp: Maybe but the two cancel each other out, i.e. sellers are buyers and buyers are sellers leaving first timebuyers, or those who have already sold and moved into rented accom temporarily, seeking too few houses. Shortage of supply in relation to demand = higher prices.
Personally I think it just cancels out people putting their houses on the market hoping to make a killing on the price (non-serious sellers unless someone offers over the odds). This will be a good thing for first time buyers.
Originally posted by Rising Damp: Maybe but the two cancel each other out, i.e. sellers are buyers and buyers are sellers leaving first timebuyers, or those who have already sold and moved into rented accom temporarily, seeking too few houses. Shortage of supply in relation to demand = higher prices.
it stillk comes back to basic economics though too many people chasing too few houses = higher prices = sellers market. Not good for the FTB.
Personally I think it just cancels out people putting their houses on the market hoping to make a killing on the price (non-serious sellers unless someone offers over the odds). This will be a good thing for first time buyers.
Personally I think it just cancels out people putting their houses on the market hoping to make a killing on the price (non-serious sellers unless someone offers over the odds). This will be a good thing for first time buyers.
So you think less property for sale is a good thing for First Time Buyers? I disagree, the whole reason prices have shot up is a shortage of quality housing stock, something Mr Prescott has pledged to resolve, unsuccesfully.
Originally posted by stateofplay: So you think less property for sale is a good thing for First Time Buyers? I disagree, the whole reason prices have shot up is a shortage of quality housing stock, something Mr Prescott has pledged to resolve, unsuccesfully.
I think less overpriced property (speculators only willing to sell at more than like for like properties) is a good thing for First Time Buyers, yes.
Mr Prescott has no intention of helping anyone. This government has succeeded in their "Miracle Economy" on the back off high house prices and fudged figures (Inflation, Economic Cycle etc)
Originally posted by stateofplay: So you think less property for sale is a good thing for First Time Buyers? I disagree, the whole reason prices have shot up is a shortage of quality housing stock, something Mr Prescott has pledged to resolve, unsuccesfully.
I think less overpriced property (speculators only willing to sell at more than like for like properties) is a good thing for First Time Buyers, yes.
Mr Prescott has no intention of helping anyone. This government has succeeded in their "Miracle Economy" on the back off high house prices and fudged figures (Inflation, Economic Cycle etc)
But grossly overpriced property rarely sells. Houses find their own market value despite some agents trying to push prices up. We eee examples on the CH4 property progs and discussions on this forum to that effect.
Originally posted by Rising Damp: But grossly overpriced property rarely sells. Houses find their own market value despite some agents trying to push prices up. We eee examples on the CH4 property progs and discussions on this forum to that effect.
Rarely sells, but it does, pushing prices up. Removing the speculators will be good for reducing asking price averages, such as Rightmove, who want us to think prices are now averaging over 200K.
Personally I think it just cancels out people putting their houses on the market hoping to make a killing on the price (non-serious sellers unless someone offers over the odds). This will be a good thing for first time buyers.
So you think less property for sale is a good thing for First Time Buyers? I disagree, the whole reason prices have shot up is a shortage of quality housing stock, something Mr Prescott has pledged to resolve, unsuccesfully.
Fully agree, and HIPs will reduce the available houses for sale. Iunderstand that a sijilar scheme in Denmark led to a 25% reduction in houses coming to the market
Our wonderful housing minister feels it is only those who benefit financially from the current system who are opposing the introduction of these crazy things. This is her only line of defence when questions about the workability of the scheme are put to her.
She was on TV on Saturday morning and when asked about what happens about updating the information if the house doesn't sell for months her answer was pure b******s!
She as ever largely avoided the question, but I think what she was saying was it shouldn't cost as much as only parts will be out of date, so that's OK then!
As ever BBC News 24 had about a minute to question her, so questions about insurance, liability for errors, 'who is the client?' etc etc were never broached - no doubt the Minister needed prior notification of the questions so really awkward ones were taken out.
A private members bill was introduced to parliament last week by Ian Liddell Grainger MP proposing that HIPs be scrapped. It passed its first reading unopposed and has a second reading on May 20th. Details on this site http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhan....htm#60418-11_spnew6 I would urge all those opposed to HIPs to write to their MPs in support of this initiative.
