Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Do We Need Home Information Packs?

It is undoubtedly the case that the HIP legislation and the resulting cost of HIPs will find its way into the annuls of history as one of the most ill conceived, poorly researched and implemented legislation that the conveyancing industry has ever seen.

 

We should remember that HIPs were originally intended to speed up the conveyancing process.

 

The positive effect of the HIP legislation is that in the majority of cases, Conveyancers are instructed earlier.  At the Convey Group, we have been preparing legal sellers packs for the last ten years.  The legal sellers pack contains the usual sellers property information forms and fixtures, fittings and contents lists as well as important documentation such as planning and building regulation consents and guarantees that will be required once the sale of the property has been negotiated.

 

Our data shows that the early preparation of a legal sellers pack can shave up to 3 weeks off transaction times.

 

Unfortunately, HIP instructions do not always mean that Conveyancers are simultaneously instructed with HIP providers only undertaking work on the HIP in accordance with the government legislation.  This effectively means that all of the preliminary work needs to be done when the sale of the property is negotiated as opposed to when the property is put on the market, with the opportunity missed to reduce live transaction times.

 

Many of the original features of the HIP legislation added value to the transaction process.

 

The original HIP legislation obtained a requirement to obtain the leasehold management information from the management agents in relation to leasehold property.  Obtaining this documentation early inevitably sped up the conveyancing process as getting hold of this documentation from the management agents is often difficult and time consuming.

 

The government, in their infinite wisdom, decided that this element of the HIP "was no longer required" in December 2007.  The reason being that it was difficult for the HIP providers to obtain and slowed the HIP process down!

 

The reality now is that sellers are often reluctant to meet the cost of leasehold management information until the property is sold – having already spent between £350 and £500 inclusive of VAT on their HIP.  The resultant effect is that transaction progress is not any quicker for leasehold cases.

 

The HIP contains local authority and drainage searches.  Is transaction time effected by the early request of these searches?

 

Who said that the provision of searches ever delayed property transactions substantially in the first instance?

 

Ten years ago, when it was only possible to obtain your local authority search direct from the depths of your local authority, these searches delayed transactions, especially if the one person who undertook these searches for the local authority was away on holiday!

 

In recent years, an army of personal search companies have established themselves.  These companies can provide personal local company searches within days of request, so long as the local authority will let them into their offices.

 

If local authority searches can be obtained within days of request, why order them when the property is placed on the market?

 

The shelf life of a local authority search is limited to 3-6 months.  The local authority search is actually out of date on the day that it is undertaken.  Additional entries can be made, revealing road schemes or planning or building regulation enforcement notices the day after the search was undertaken.

 

Pre-HIPs these searches were undertaken by the purchaser once the sale of the property had been negotiated.  Receipt of these searches inevitably fell in line with the receipt of the offer of mortgage.  Contracts were thereafter exchanged within a reasonable time to satisfy the purchaser client and his legal adviser that no substantive entries would have been made to change the local authority search between the time of its receipt and the time of exchange of contracts,

 

Can the benefit of the HIP searches be passed on to the purchaser? 

 

There is a legal principle known as privity of contract.  The privity of contract principle states that a third party (purchaser) cannot rely on information contained between two contracting parties (the seller and the search provider).

 

The HIP legislation also specifically confirms that the seller should not rely on any information contained within the HIP and that the usual principles of caveat emptor – buyer beware – should apply.

 

Various trade organisations such as The Association of Home Information Pack Providers (AHIP) and COPSO have attempted to make in-roads to circumvent these legal issues by requesting that HIP providers comply with search and HIP code compliance proceedures that they have come up with.  Unfortunately, the trade regulations do not carry government backing.  The resultant effect is that many HIP providers may well be uninsured and all are totally unregulated.

 

Given the above, would a discerning conveyancer acting on behalf of a purchase client rely on a local authority search provided by a HIP provider?

 

Would a purchaser want to rely on a very important document that had been prepared by a company that may be uninsured and unregulated?

 

I would estimate that approximately 90% of local authority searches are being undertaken again by purchasers.  In the event that you are not being advised to undertake these searches again by your conveyancer, you need to give serious consideration to the legal advice that is being provided.

 

Granted, there are many HIP providers who are fully insured and have been working within the conveyancing industry for some considerable time.  The lack of regulation within this environment and the existing legislation make the reliance upon HIP local authority searches an impossibility for purchasers.

 

What about water searches?

 

The question must be asked as to what information these documents tell us.  Is the property on mains drainage or is there a water meter?  Conveyancers used to rely on the production of water utility bills for such information, why don´t they now?

 

In their infinite wisdom, the government decided that only "the best" water searches would do.  Water searches have been undertaken by personal search agents for some years, providing a fast and more cost effective service.  Not any more, the government have provided direction that all water authority searches must be obtained from the water companies direct.  Is it any wonder that the steering committees behind the HIP legislation is made up of water authorities, personal search providers and middle men who wish to profit from this HIP product.  Whilst the personal search agents may have missed out on water authority searches, their business has almost doubled overnight with them undertaking local authority searches for the seller and the purchaser of the same property. 

 

What was the purpose of HIPs?  To speed up the conveyancing process? 

 

To reduce the costs of sale to any potential purchaser?

 

Is the purpose of the HIP legislation to provide greater transparency to the purchaser at the start of a transaction? 

 

To provide greater transparency, the documentation needs to be read.  It needs to be read by a potential purchaser of the property.  Any potential purchaser would have difficulty in deciphering much of the information that is being provided.  Much of the information that is currently provided does not fundamentally affect the outcome of property transactions in any event.

 

Having run one of the largest conveyancing departments in the United Kingdom throughout the course of the last ten years, I could count on one hand the number of local authority searches that have led to property transactions being aborted as a result of findings within those searches.  I could not count on one finger the number of Water Authority searches that have led to a transaction being aborted.  As for energy performance certificates, quite frankly any potential purchaser is probably more interested in the colour of the carpet in the downstairs toilet than the information provided in this documentation.

 

The vast majority of documentation that would be of use to a potential purchaser is not contained within the existing HIP legislation.  Documents such as sellers property information forms which provide detailed questions and answers concerning the property; leasehold management information providing details of management accounts and service charges; copy planning and building regulation consents and property guarantees are all documents that are critical to the conveyancing process.  Unfortunately, the government thinks that this documentation is too difficult to obtain at the start of a transaction and hence, whilst they can be included in the HIP, they do not have to be included in the HIP.

 

If the purpose of the HIP is not to speed up the conveyancing process or provide transparency, then it must be to enhance our environment by the provision of energy performance certificates.

 

Does it follow that by providing a survey on energy efficiency it makes us more energy efficient?

 

The way that these reports are currently being undertaken needs to be questioned.  The property is first of all valued by the estate agent; the property is then surveyed by the energy assessor; the property is then surveyed and valued by the purchaser/mortgage lenders valuer.

 

Why don´t we just cut out the middle man and ask the purchasers surveyor to prepare an energy performance certificate.  This would involve one less trip to the property and would inevitably lead to costs savings and less carbon dioxide omissions.

 

The government would have us believe that this information is to be provided as a result of the outcome of an EU Treaty.  In the event that this information needs to be provided for all properties, why don´t they pass the onus on to a purchaser or mortgage lenders’ surveyor to undertake this work when a transaction is purchased or remortgaged.  Saturation levels for obtaining EPCs would increase ten fold if this were the case, as far more properties are remortgaged every year than they are sold.

 

Please can someone point out to me why we need HIPs.

 

They don´t speed up the conveyancing process.

 

They don´t make us environmentally friendly.

 

They don´t make us better informed.

 

Why have them in the first place?

1 Comments:

At 30 October 2008 08:25 , Blogger rwbig said...

My responses to the main points made by Andy:

Many of the original features of the HIP legislation added value to the transaction process.

Yes and that is why the original proposals envisaged in the legislation would have been useful, not the half-baked conditions we currently have.

The reality now is that sellers are often reluctant to meet the cost of leasehold management information until the property is sold

What should happen is that codes of practice and reasonable fees are put in place and managing agents should be working towards making the documents available online – a massive task no doubt but once done the real benefits would be enormous, for everyone involved.

The shelf life of a local authority search is limited to 3-6 months. The local authority search is actually out of date on the day that it is undertaken.

Only to the extent that the CML Handbook requires searches to be no more than 6 months old on completion. Therefore most conveyancers require them to be no more than 3 months old at exchange. There is no statutory shelf life. This has always been a problem with delays between obtaining searches and completion. What is needed is for the online search procurement to (a) be universal and cheaper than other methods and (b) include at no or nominal extra cost an online instant refresh of the search immediately prior to exchange or completion, whichever is needed.

This is no different from a survey. It’s a snapshot at the time it is done. Things can change and a view is taken by all concerned on whether this is likely to happen. Very little changes on condition related factors within a few months – the same can reasonably be said to be true for searches.

Can the benefit of the HIP searches be passed on to the purchaser?

Yes. Para. 6 of Schedule 6 of the HIP Regulations (SI 1667) states specifically that the terms on which searches are obtained must allow for the contract to be enforced by the seller, potential or actual buyer and a mortgage lender. Privity of contract is overridden by this. The same applies to Home Condition Reports (Para. 3, Schedule 9).

What was the purpose of HIPs? To speed up the conveyancing process?

Partly. If the window of opportunity to pull out (by either side) is reduced, through speeding up offer acceptance to exchange, then maybe buyers will get into a mindset of making up their mind before making an offer – do they REALLY want this property? For the buyer, nothing to do with legal or condition factors – they already know about these (if there is a proper HIP). But just changing their mind? Give them a say 14 day cooling off period by all means but don’t use the artificial and arbitrary delays produced under the old or a partial HIP system as an excuse to allow this to happen. For the seller? Do they REALLY want to sell? Maybe the need to commit to a few hundred £ to get their home to a saleable status will make them think about this before they get someone falling in love with it and getting a transaction chain under way. Is that not worth the possible loss of a percentage of kite flyers, who were distorting the market expectations anyway? I think it is.

To reduce the costs of sale to any potential purchaser?

First time buyers maybe? No costs of searches, title information and ideally, survey and enviro-searches. Normally they don’t bother with a survey, too much money. But they get one if an HCR is provided (which it should be, if the HIP concept were to be fulfilled). Free. And most sellers are buying elsewhere so if all these things were mandatory, they would get the benefit on their related purchase. OK, people moving abroad would lose out, the poor things and sales on death but that’s just a question of money in the bank – no related purchase to fund. Overall costs should also reduce if it saves several surveys on the same home if sales collapse. So the answer is – if HIPs were fully implemented as originally intended, there would be significant overall cost savings.

Oh and just in case some idiot says – who would trust a survey commissioned by a seller? – Think about it for a second or two – it shouldn’t take any longer than that. Think that - a surveyor/inspector (whatever) is going to get sued and kicked out of their profession if they did “soft” reports sufficient to make any difference to a seller. Matter closed, I trust.

To provide greater transparency, the documentation needs to be read. It needs to be read by a potential purchaser of the property.

Rubbish. What has changed? The timing and procurement, that’s all. Purchasers did not read the information that is in HIPs under the old system, why should they now? (The difference is that, if they are actually interested and intelligent enough to read them – which many are – they can do so – there is no mythology to property ownership or transfer, as much as conveyancers might like us to believe). The only extra bit is the EPC which increasingly people are interested in. The EPC is far from perfect on providing the layperson with an understanding of the energy efficiency of the home, but it’s a start on a long and inevitable road.

Now, the Home Condition Report (HCR) is also an extra bit (for those idiots who weren’t going to have a survey and relied on a mortgage VALUATION report (if they were lucky to even get one of those)). But the government decided this wasn’t important enough to make mandatory. It’s actually the one bit a buyer would find interesting and useful.

Having run one of the largest conveyancing departments in the United Kingdom throughout the course of the last ten years, I could count on one hand the number of local authority searches that have led to property transactions being aborted as a result of findings within those searches.

You said it. Sort of destroys the argument about the risk related to changes in searches between a HIP search and exchange/completion doesn’t it?

As for energy performance certificates, quite frankly any potential purchaser is probably more interested in the colour of the carpet in the downstairs toilet than the information provided in this documentation.

Times change chum. Enough said. Worth you getting up to date on this.

The vast majority of documentation that would be of use to a potential purchaser is not contained within the existing HIP legislation.

On this I agree 99% (in terms of required documents, though of course the other stuff can be put in if anyone feels it might, like, be helpful (even a HCR). It needs all those documents that are required to make a property as near to exchange ready as it can be. Quite a challenge though. But the HIP is a poor start – a move in the right direction which needs encouragement, not dismissal.

The way that these reports are currently being undertaken needs to be questioned. The property is first of all valued by the estate agent; the property is then surveyed by the energy assessor; the property is then surveyed and valued by the purchaser/mortgage lenders valuer.

Why don´t we just cut out the middle man and ask the purchasers surveyor to prepare an energy performance certificate. This would involve one less trip to the property and would inevitably lead to costs savings and less carbon dioxide omissions.


Um, yes. But few people qualified to do EPCs are also qualified to do surveys and vice versa (because the government decided not to give RICS the mandate to create and implement the HCR – by the way the EPC did not exist when HIPs were first muted – it was a late addition). So why not get the survey and EPC done at the outset? Reduce the risk of more investigations after a buyer’s survey, allow the estate agent to market the property with the condition information known (helpful for the seller to know it too). Get the mortgage lenders to accept condition related information from an HCR. AVMs are anyway going to move on and up after the present little upset.

Why don´t they pass the onus on to a purchaser or mortgage lenders’ surveyor to undertake this work when a transaction is purchased or remortgaged. Saturation levels for obtaining EPCs would increase ten fold if this were the case, as far more properties are remortgaged every year than they are sold.

For two very good reasons.
1. The best time for an EPC to be provided is when a buyer is applying for a mortgage and can make decisions about the level of the mortgage based on, e.g. whether they should get a new boiler or install double glazing.
2. The EU Directive doesn’t require an EPC on remortgage. People already say the government has gold plated the EPC by reducing its longevity from the 10 years maximum (to 3 years for HIP related EPCs). Think of the criticism if they tried to require one on a remortgage.

So to summarise the answers to your questions:

They don´t speed up the conveyancing process.

They would if they were fully implemented. When Margaret Beckett said this week that HIPs aren’t fulfilling their potential, she failed to add that the reason for this was because of her predecessors’ decisions to take the major benefits of the HCR out of the HIP as a required document, not to promote/require technological improvements in search procurement and to chicken out on environmental searches being required because the providers can’t agree on a standard format.

They don´t make us environmentally friendly.

Maybe not at present but (a) that wasn’t HIPs' original intention and (b) they will, if people bother to read the EPC, whicih they probably will as energy efficiency becomes more relevant and important to buyers, who could do with knowing if they should get a new boiler at the time they apply for their mortgage.

They don´t make us better informed.

If properly implemented, they make us better informed at the appropriate time, like, when we are deciding whether to make an offer to buy a property or when we are deciding how and at what price to market our property.

Why have them in the first place?

40 years (yes, that’s a fact – it started with the Law Commission in 1966) of consideration and consultation on ways of improving the conveyancing process, combined with the technical capability (not yet complete but well on the way) results in a consensus that change was needed. The original HIP concept, with a few loose ends tidied up, was the result. But it has been completely screwed up by a dithering government and a dinosaur home transfer industry.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home