"tim" wrote in message
...

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

"tim" wrote in message
...

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

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:43:59 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article
ews.net):

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:57:50 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

The government has abandoned the
Home Condition Reports, which
were due to be introduced next year
for all house sales in England and Wales.

Brilliant news.

Matt, it is not brilliant news at all.

Anything involving

Matt, anything involving a house is sound, a house MOT, is fine by me.
It is a great idea.

The idea of HCR is sound indeed. An
MOT at house change. It ensures
that the buyer get a decent deal and the
services are all inspected. Everyone gains.

No they don't.

Matt, of source they don't, as it hasn't been inspected.

Only a half wit in the position of buying
a property would accept a survey
commissioned by the vendor.

Matt, it is not commissioned by the vendor. It would be "mandatory" and
the vendor pays. Do you think a Part P inspector pulls back on the
rules because of the person paying?

The (other) problem with the HCR is that it is going to
be a fairly basic check at unnecessarily high cost for
what you get (As you have to have one there will
be less incentive to bring the price down). It will
be one of those reports that tells you everything you
can see for yourself (if you CBA to look) and
almost nothing that you can't. For 49% of house
purchases it's going to be completely unnecessary
and for another 49% of sales it will be completely
inedaquate and a fuller survery will be required.
Only for about 2% of sales will be be of any
value (and yes it is obvious which sales these are)

AS I said, it should be looked at again. The report must be
comprehensive, covering all the item.

but why?

the sort of report you are suggesting is going to cost
over a grand. Why should the owner of a 2 year old house
be forced to shell out a grand just because the boiler in a 60
year old house might be knackered.

That was very silly.

This sort of thing should be negotiable betwen the parties.

Nope. The buyer should be made aware of all defects and the state of the
place in all aspects. No,. the buyer should not commission a survey at all.
It should be there all up front by the vendor.

So the buyer gets the boiler checked at their expense after they have made
the offer,

NO. Effing well NO !!!!!!!!!!! The vendor has all this checked and sells
the property with full report open all potential purchasers. It is called
transparency. What you advocate is keeping the status quo which favours
sharks - those who play on the naive especially in a times when its a
sellers market.

If you have nothing to hide you would not object to such an inspection and
report.