John Rumm wrote:
wrote:
The Government have argued that HIPs will:
· Enable buyers and sellers to negotiate from an informed position;
Only works if the buyers (and their lenders) trust the information in
the pack. Many lenders have stated that they will not.
the survey information is sold to the seller, not the buyer, and this
creates an unsatisfactory business/legal situation between surveyor and
buyer.
· Increase openness and transparency, helping to make the process
less adversarial and stressful;
how is having to find another grand when youre so broke you have to
sell going to reduce stress?? While I dont want to state the damn
obvious, but it seems its needed he are people in financial trouble
now going to unable to sell legally? Raising another thousand pre-sale
is out of the question for many in such a situation. Perhaps there will
be new schemes where company A pays for the survey then takes 2 grand
from the sale price later - people will be even more badly stung than
now. Reduce stress my arse.
How does one more thing to organise and pay through the nose for reduce
stress anyway?
Increase the chances of deception in reality.
definetely. The surveyor is not answerable to the buyer, works in the
seller's interest now, and the seller can cherry pick the survey, as
you say further down. Also since some surveyors just want to maximise
business, they will offer what the client wants, as good a survey as
they can possibly think of any excuse to give. We all know about
plausible denial. Its a fundamentally unsound system.
Most houses today are sold without any survey beyond a basic valuation.
When every sale is subject to survey, the skill level of the surveyors
will inevitably drop dramatically, as the present cherry picking of
students will no longer be an option. Surveys are patchy enough
already, under the new system theyll be a shambles.
· Help the parties commit more quickly to the transaction, shortening
the period of uncertainty between acceptance of an offer and contract
exchange;
with a dodgy survey the uncertainty is still there. When the buyer
commissions a survey and the 2 conflict, the uncertainty will be more
not less, and go on much longer.
It will improve knowledge level for those currently buying wtih no
survey, but those people are choosing, as adults exercising their own
free will, to not pay for the survey. Clearly the majoprity of the
population does not believe the survey cost to be money well spent. Is
a nanny government forcing them to spend more money (the survey cost
will just be added to the sale price) at the very time they are least
able to spend on extras, and when they very clearlty dont want to
spend, a good thing?
Why really does the govt want to force every citizen to pay a closed
shop several times per life for a product they dont even want to buy?
Is this a recurring theme of this govt? Do you want your money, choices
and freedoms taken away piece by piece? I sure dont. What puzzles me is
why the British public seem so unaware of the game being played. In the
US these concepts are part of basic education for all.
It might speed up some of the conveyancing tasks. The survey / financial
parts of the transaction seem unlikely to be helped much though.
each buyer survey that conflicts with the seller survey will greatly
slow and complicate matters. And for reasons above these will become
common.
· Increase certainty by avoiding unwelcome surprises which may
otherwise cause renegotiation and transaction failures after terms have
been agreed;
Until contracts are exchanged renegotiation is still going to happen though.
yes, present negotiations are mostly just excuses to make a lower
offer, not genuine reasons. This practice will contiue anyway, just
different excuses will be needed, such as 'my lender has now said we
can only have...' 'but we realised...' Same game will continue.
· Reduce wasted costs resulting from high rates of failed
transactions;
Increase waste by adding extra surveys (one for the pack, another the
buyers/lenders trust!)
and a 3rd after the first 2 conflict
· Help shorten the overall transaction timescale.
Given the success of govt. legislation achieving its stated aims (i.e.
it more typically achieves the exact opposite) that ought to be worrying!
surveyors will be in short supply, waiting times will be long.
a buyer survey will still be wanted in some cases as before
when the 2 surveys conflict, it will take ages to sort out.
quick no-survey transactions will no longer be possible.
However, it means that if you want to sell your house you will have to
pay for a pack up front £700 - £1000 and some to the elements will
have to be renewed every 3 months. What happens if you don't sell, what
Then the exercise just cost you a grand.
happens if you the survey is inaccurate and you don't agree with it,
Complain to the surveyor, or more likely get another one.
This will be a real problem in a lot of cases. Builders and surveyors
looking at housing types theyre not familiar with do reach the wrong
conclusions some of the time. A well known goof is the assumption that
all Victorian houses have non-cavity walls. What happens when seller
and surveyor dont agree on basic facts, or when seller thinks the
survey complete tosh? Now they just shrug and wait for the next buyer,
but with the new system there will be a real problem there.
I'm just not sure that this system isn't just creating jobs for the
boys and loads of additional expense for the seller. If any one out
there sees it differently or can allay my fears let me know.
of course. Neither buyers nor sellers want it (most are not paying for
surveys now). Government will get another revenue stream from it
though, which will be extracted from us with legal punishment for
anyone who refuses to pay. Sounds more like extortion than acting in
the interests of the citizens.
NT