"tim" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

It ensures that the buyer get a decent deal and the
services are all inspected.

It doesn't. That's why the banks/building societies have
told the government they won't accept the HCR.

The idea is sound and right - a house MOT. That is the point. When you
buy a house you know you are not going into a crock that is going to cost
you £1000s a few years down the line.

The American system does this perfectly well.
It is included as part of the sales contract and
effectively is the seller giving the buyer a
personal warrenty against undeclared faults.

I know a few people who bought houses with boilers on their last legs,
sludged up, and the rads undersized. After the first winter many 1000s were
spent on what they thougt was perfectly good heating system.

Many had also found the shower was a dribble and spent a fortune on larger
cylinders and power shower pumps.

We need this HCR.

It should be looked at again and implemented.

The problem with HCR is the requirement to get
one before marketing the property.

I don't see that as a problem.