In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

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. It should be looked at again and
implemented.

I have no interest in what someone else claims the state of a house is.
I've bought two houses in my life, and on both occasions I surveyed
the parts I am competent to do such as plumbing/electrics, to the
extent that I cared, and got a structural surveyor to do the structural
checks which I didn't consider myself competent to do. An HCR would
have been completely useless to me, and would not have changed what I
did during the purchase. As such, it would have been a complete waste
of money by the vendors, and delayed them getting the house on the
market in the first place.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
On 19 Jul 2006 20:15:02 GMT Andrew Gabriel wrote :
It doesn't. That's why the banks/building societies have
told the government they won't accept the HCR.

Given that they are charging £££ (from a quick Google Northern Rock
are charging £565 for properties in the £250K-500K band) and how
long the average valuation (not HBR) is reckoned to take, you don't
think that there might be some element of vested interest here?

Well, I've never paid a lender for a valuation. I have got my
surveyor to write out a valuation for the lender, which cost
nothing in one case, and about £50 in the other case.
OTOH, I've never borrowed money from Northern Rock (although
I did lend them some very many years ago until their interest
rate got stupidly low).

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
AS I said, it should be looked at again. The report must be comprehensive,
covering all the item. For example, they could highlight the boiler ~20
years old and inefficient. or that the boiler ~4 years old and an efficient
condenser. Simple things that do matter. If I buy the house with the old
boiler I may want to drop the price to compensate for bringing the system up
to date.

Same with loft insulation. Yes you can have 50mm in then loft and say it is
insulated. Very different to 300mm of insulation.

These items are still in the HIP as part of the SAP survey.

These are points which are nearly always overlooked which matter a year or
two down the line. The last thing you want is one year on a bill of £4K.

You are making a mistake in thinking that house buyers even
remotely care about energy efficiency. You won't knock anything
off a house price for an old boiler, or be able to charge extra
for energy efficient boiler. If you go even further with things
like solar panels or photo voltaics or highly advanced heating
controls, you will find these can start knocking value off as
punters become scared of the extra complexity. By all means
add such things for your own benefit (I do), but recognose that
they never increase, and can decrease house value.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"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.

This sort of thing should be negotiable betwen the parties.

For example, they could highlight the boiler ~20 years old and
inefficient. or that the boiler ~4 years old and an efficient condenser.
Simple things that do matter. If I buy the house with the old boiler I
may want to drop the price to compensate for bringing the system up to
date.

Same with loft insulation. Yes you can have 50mm in then loft and say it
is insulated. Very different to 300mm of insulation.

These are points which are nearly always overlooked which matter a year or
two down the line. The last thing you want is one year on a bill of £4K.

So the buyer gets the boiler checked at their expense after
they have made the offer, if it's knakered then a reduced
offer is made, easy peezy.

tim

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

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. It should be looked at again and
implemented.

I have no interest in what
someone else claims the state
of a house is.

Grow up. You are naive.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
AS I said, it should be looked at again. The report must be
comprehensive,
covering all the item. For example, they could highlight the boiler ~20
years old and inefficient. or that the boiler ~4 years old and an
efficient
condenser. Simple things that do matter. If I buy the house with the
old
boiler I may want to drop the price to compensate for bringing the system
up
to date.

Same with loft insulation. Yes you can have 50mm in then loft and say it
is
insulated. Very different to 300mm of insulation.

These items are still in the HIP as part of the SAP survey.

These are points which are nearly always overlooked which matter a year
or
two down the line. The last thing you want is one year on a bill of £4K.

You are making a mistake in thinking that house buyers even
remotely care about energy efficiency.

You might be surprised. Try and sell a house without double glazing.

"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.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-20, tim wrote:

"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.

A report paid for and held by the vendor? A waste of good trees. I
won't even bother looking at it. Completely pointless waste of time,
effort and money dreamed up by some **** who doesn't know the first
thing about buying and selling houses. The very last person in the
world I'm going to trust is the vendor.


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.

It's irrelevant. I don't care if Ove Arup did it and it cost
GBP15K. I'm not going to trust anything paid for and held
by the vendor.

The whole idea is almost as stupid as Dr. Drivel.

You are as thick as pig ****!!! The inspection/report would be mandatory,
as is an MOT, undertaken by an impartial approved person. What you are
saying is that all car MOTs are worthless.

Also the report would cut inflated charges by surveyors, who as the TV
consumer shows have proved are worthless most of the time. Many have been
proved to be incompetent. Oh they hide behind a royal charter - what
********.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:33:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:24:48 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):

Matt, it is not commissioned by the
vendor. It would be "mandatory" and the
vendor pays.

That argument is semantic.

Matt, like an MOT tester. Does your do dodgy deals? They cleared up the
MOT system as at one time it was joke.

If one house MOT is required covering structure and all services and
notes
where they are behind to current standards (old inefficient boiler that
gobbles fuel, no RCD, for instances), then that is what is required.

No it isn't.

Matt, it is. I know you difficulty overcoming Little Middle Englandness.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:34:29 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

What you are
saying is that all car MOTs are worthless.

No, he's saying that Prescott's Pack is worthless, like the fat arse who
pushed it through parliament and the discredited ****wits who dreamed it up
in the first place.

The building societies have already said they will not accept the survey in
the pack and buyers will still have to pay for a valuation, and if they
have more than a single brain cell for a full structural survey.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Do you think a Part P inspector ...

No such person.

There is. Certified Electricians who will test a house and give a
certificate saying it conforms to Part P. It is now big business.


In an ideal world. I've also seen reports of someone from the BC office
turning up, having a quick look and signing the job off without
any sort of formal tests. The BCO doesn't need to possess any qualifications
to sign off a Part P notification, though most do subcontract a PIR as
supporting evidence.

... pulls back on the rules because of the person paying?

Yes, actually - and very definitely.

I can't account for your cowboy dealings.

Get real. Years ago, I went to an MOT station, where your MOT was issued
in 20 minutes, the engine was cold and the car suspiciously parked exactly
as I left it. Why should it not be the case that a vendor finds a similarly
bent HIP inspector. I as the buyer have had no opportunity to assess the
inspector so my natural inclination is to regard a HIP as untrustworthy.

To my mind the whole HIP/HCR thing - which, as has already been said,
wasn't going to include testing gas or electrical installations in any
case - is fundamentally flawed. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

It should include all services.

If the government was going to bother at all, then I agree, it should.
Caveat still applies though. And it wasn't going to bother - in reality it
was going to be an assessment carried out by a failed hairdresser or
suchlike. I have more competence to assess a building than the shower of HI
trainees that I was listening to on the radio last year.


You probably do. I suppose you think the same about MOT inspectors
too.

Your analogy with the MOT is quite invalid, IMO.

It isn't at all. A certified NCR inpector is the equiv to an MOT tester.

If the MOT test items we

a) Are the documents in order;

b) Report on the paintwork.

c) The MPG rating based on looking up the engine and manufacturer in a set
of tables.

Then maybe.

is just a report - you don't pass or fail it.

Parts may be failed like electricity and gas which should be included.

They wouldn't. Remember this was a half-arsed implementation anyway.

But any focus points should be brought up: old inefficient gas boiler,
poor shower performance, lead water mains, etc.

Who gives a rats arse? Any buyer with one good eyeball can see these.

I knew a girl who bought a house thinking all the electrics were new. A
new
CU and, socket and switches, The wiring was 55 years old and falling
apart.

Didn't look very hard then. I've saw a house exactly like this - new
fittings, new CU, total (quick and dirty) makeover. Took me 2 minutes to
spot a cable that was patently not new and raise the question about the
entire state of the wiring.

It is cons like this that these reports should bring to the surface. If
a rewires is £3K, then a price can be negotiate on the house price, but it
must be done before occupation by the new owner.

Why? I've been quite prepared to take on a house with 40 year old knackered
wiring and replace it post-haste if I bought.

The NCR is in principle a good idea. Reviewing it is what is needed and
then implementing.

You'll be wanting guarantees from blokes at car boot sales next. Get a
grip - selling a house is a private matter between two parties. It needs
less government interference, not more. If someone is too stupid to take
due care and pay attention when buying a house, which includes not
bothering to commission a proper survey themselves and relying on the
lender's, why is that my problem?

Last house I looked at I wouldn't have bothered with a survey. I would
however have paid for a detailed inspection of the drains because I had
cause for concern. I'd rather spend my money on specialist reports about
things I've flagged up than pay someone to tell me less than I already
know.

Tim

Doctor Drivel wrote:

You might be surprised. Try and sell a house without double glazing.

Happens round here, doesn't seem to be a problem.

Tim

Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is called transparency.

Drivel, the only transparency that exists is in the space between your ears.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

Please learn to snip...

Also the report would cut inflated charges by surveyors, who as the TV
consumer shows have proved are worthless most of the time. Many have been
proved to be incompetent. Oh they hide behind a royal charter - what
********.

Exactly. Now tell me again why an HI would be more competent and thorough
than a surveyor?

Tim

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



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

Correct. I have no problem with such an inspection and report.

I have a problem with being expected to PAY for it.

tim

Odd isn't it how so many staunch New Labour supporters are so blatently
anti-english.

Perhaps Dr Drivel's views would be taken more seriously if he was not
so racist.

Surely the main problem with the HCR is the lack of accountability. If
the buyer relies on a report which has errors and omissions, or is just
plain wrong who does he sue? Not the vendor nor presumably the
Inspector.

At least if he gets his own survey he has a remedy against his surveyor

Little Middle Englander (and proud of it)

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:34:29 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

What you are
saying is that all car MOTs are worthless.

No,

The heat in the fields must be affecting him. Sad isn't it.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

Please learn to snip...

Also the report would cut inflated charges by surveyors, who as the TV
consumer shows have proved are worthless most of the time. Many have
been
proved to be incompetent. Oh they hide behind a royal charter - what
********.

Exactly. Now tell me again why an HI would be more competent and thorough
than a surveyor?

Read all my posts again. Those are against one are usually people people
who are underhanded. If you honest everyone gains.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is called transparency.

Drivel, the only transparency that exists is in the space between your
ears.

Is that Tory wit. You are dishonest. That is why you don't like honest
schemes

"tim" wrote in message
...

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

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

Correct. I have no problem with such an inspection and report.

I have a problem with being expected to PAY for it.

You have something to hide. They are a brilliant idea.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:19 +0100 Tim S wrote :
Get real. Years ago, I went to an MOT station, where your MOT was issued
in 20 minutes, the engine was cold and the car suspiciously parked exactly
as I left it. Why should it not be the case that a vendor finds a
similarly bent HIP inspector. I

Because such a person is unlikely to stay in business for long. People are
always suing surveyors which is why their indemnity insurance is so high. I
have never heard of a car buyer suing a garage for issuing a dodgy MoT
certificate, though I know that garages do lose their testing status if
complaints are made and upheld.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 21 Jul 2006 02:00:15 -0700 Little middle englander wrote :
Surely the main problem with the HCR is the lack of accountability. If
the buyer relies on a report which has errors and omissions, or is just
plain wrong who does he sue? Not the vendor nor presumably the
Inspector.

The inspector. A standard buyer-commissioned survey will always have a
clause saying that it was prepared for the client alone and the surveyor
accepts no liability to anyone else. An HIP report is prepared with the
explicit understanding that it will be relied upon by any one of a number
of prospective purchasers. Of course there will be all the usual
disclaimer clauses but where a surveyor is grossly negligent these will
not protect him.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Do you think a Part P inspector ...

No such person.

There is. Certified Electricians who will test a house and give a
certificate saying it conforms to Part P. It is now big business.


In an ideal world. I've also seen reports of someone from the BC office
turning up, having a quick look and signing the job off without
any sort of formal tests. The BCO doesn't need to possess any
qualifications
to sign off a Part P notification, though most do subcontract a PIR as
supporting evidence.

A BCO would not be doing the test.

... pulls back on the rules because of the person paying?

Yes, actually - and very definitely.

I can't account for your cowboy dealings.

Get real. Years ago, I went to an
MOT station, where your MOT was issued
in 20 minutes, the engine was cold and
the car suspiciously parked exactly
as I left it.

That is why they changed the MOT rules and prosecuted dodgy dealers.

To my mind the whole HIP/HCR thing - which, as has already been said,
wasn't going to include testing gas or electrical installations in any
case - is fundamentally flawed. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

It should include all services.

If the government was going to bother at all, then I agree, it should.
Caveat still applies though. And it wasn't going to bother - in reality it
was going to be an assessment carried out by a failed hairdresser or
suchlike. I have more competence to assess a building than the shower of
HI
trainees that I was listening to on the radio last year.


You probably do. I suppose you think the same about MOT inspectors
too.

Your analogy with the MOT is quite invalid, IMO.

It isn't at all. A certified NCR inpector is the equiv to an MOT tester.

If the MOT test items we

a) Are the documents in order;

b) Report on the paintwork.

c) The MPG rating based on looking up the engine and manufacturer in a set
of tables.

Then maybe.

is just a report - you don't pass or fail it.

Parts may be failed like electricity and gas which should be included.

They wouldn't. Remember this was a half-arsed implementation anyway.

I read it was is under review. Intially it was to be fully blown check, but
the estate agents, surveyors, etc objected (sharks the lot of them), so it
was rolled back.

But any focus points should be brought up: old inefficient gas boiler,
poor shower performance, lead water mains, etc.

Who gives a rats arse? Any buyer with one good eyeball can see these.

Yes the 40ish office working lady will notice all this of course. Duh!.
Get real House selling is con mans dream. These checks to cut that crap out
and protect these people from sharks.

I knew a girl who bought a house thinking all the electrics were new. A
new
CU and, socket and switches, The wiring was 55 years old and falling
apart.

Didn't look very hard then.

She is not an electrician and can't even wire a plug.

I've saw a house exactly like this - new
fittings, new CU, total (quick and dirty) makeover. Took me 2 minutes to
spot a cable that was patently not new and raise the question about the
entire state of the wiring.

It is cons like this that these reports should bring to the surface. If
a rewires is £3K, then a price can be negotiate on the house price, but
it
must be done before occupation by the new owner.

Why? I've been quite prepared to
take on a house with 40 year old knackered
wiring and replace it post-haste if I bought.

Understand what an MOT is.

The NCR is in principle a good idea. Reviewing it is what is needed and
then implementing.

You'll be wanting guarantees
from blokes at car boot sales next. Get a
grip - selling a house is a private matter
between two parties. It needs
less government interference,

What it needs is proper house MOT to ensure the buyer gets a fully
serviceable house and is not ripped off by sharks. Those who are against
such schemes are...............sharks?

"little middle englander" wrote in message
ups.com...

Odd isn't it how so many staunch
New Labour supporters are so blatently
anti-english.

It is amazing the little minded ones are all Little Middle Englanders.

Perhaps Dr Drivel's views would be
taken more seriously if he was not
so racist.

Dr Drivel is English. And a great tango dancer.

Surely the main problem with the HCR is the lack of accountability. If
the buyer relies on a report which has errors and omissions, or is just
plain wrong who does he sue? Not the vendor nor presumably the
Inspector.

At least if he gets his own survey he has a remedy against his surveyor

Little Middle Englander (and proud of it)

Being proud of being ignorant is odd.

In article , Tim S
wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You might be surprised. Try and sell a house without double glazing.

Happens round here, doesn't seem to be a problem.

I think Drivel means "Try TO". Try AND makes no sense, quelle surprise.

--
AJL

Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

A BCO would not be doing the test.

No, (s)he is the one signing off the job. How he arranges tests OR NOT
is up to him. It is not unknown for the job to be signed off with no test.

That is why they changed the MOT rules and prosecuted dodgy dealers.

Maybe - I've not aware of any dodgey MOT stations near me, then I haven't
been looking. But how can you be certain that there is not longer any such
thing as a bent MOT cert issued on at least one car these days?

If I commission the MOT, I can choose an MOT station known to be thorough
and watch the test being carried out. If I see an otherwise valid MOT cert
on a vendor's car, I have no way of knowing if the tester had a bad day,
was half asleep, or was a friend of the vendor and slightly bent with it.

I read it was is under review. Intially it was to be fully blown check,
but the estate agents, surveyors, etc objected (sharks the lot of them),
so it was rolled back.

So the government gave in and allowed to to become a pointless exercise.
Do it properly or not at all.


Yes the 40ish office working lady will notice all this of course. Duh!.
Get real House selling is con mans dream. These checks to cut that crap
out and protect these people from sharks.

I knew a girl who bought a house thinking all the electrics were new. A
new
CU and, socket and switches, The wiring was 55 years old and falling
apart.

Didn't look very hard then.

She is not an electrician and can't even wire a plug.

Whilst I don't expect the buyer to know everything, I reasonably expect them
to be aware they don't know everything and bring a mate/instruct a surveyor
at their own cost to check it as much as they like. Stop expecting me to
cotton wool the incompetent/ignorant/lazy.

I can deal with a fair amount myself, why do I want to pay (indirectly or
directly) for something I can deal with? If a HIP was going to cost
600-1000 pounds, I could get a damn good drains inspection and a PIR if I
wished for less than that.

snip

Understand what an MOT is.

Yes, it's that thing I need to drive a vehicle on public roads etc. I do not
need an MOT to exists on a car I'm buying or selling.


The NCR is in principle a good idea. Reviewing it is what is needed and
then implementing.

You'll be wanting guarantees
from blokes at car boot sales next. Get a
grip - selling a house is a private matter
between two parties. It needs
less government interference,

What it needs is proper house MOT to ensure the buyer gets a fully
serviceable house and is not ripped off by sharks. Those who are against
such schemes are...............sharks?

The Kremlin just called for you:

they said they want their ideology back when you have a moment... :|

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

In article , Tim S
wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You might be surprised. Try and sell a house without double glazing.

Happens round here, doesn't seem to be a problem.

I think Drivel means "Try TO". Try AND makes no sense, quelle surprise.


Yes, that's how I read it.

Cheers

Tim

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

"tim" wrote in message
...

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

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

Correct. I have no problem with such an inspection and report.

I have a problem with being expected to PAY for it.

You have something to hide.

I don't have a house. How can I have a
something to hide?

They are a brilliant idea.

??

tim

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"tim" wrote in message
...

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

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

Correct. I have no problem with such an inspection and report.

I have a problem with being expected to PAY for it.

You have something to hide. They are a brilliant idea.

If that was true they would already exist, and would not
require government compulsion. You are aware that many
car dealers commission independent reports in advance of
any sale? That does not and did not require law, it makes
sense. If it made equal sense with houses, it would have
been done long ago, by estate agents looking for a USP.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:41:58 +0100 Joe wrote :
If that was true they would already exist, and would not
require government compulsion. You are aware that many
car dealers commission independent reports in advance of
any sale? That does not and did not require law, it makes
sense. If it made equal sense with houses, it would have
been done long ago, by estate agents looking for a USP.

No, because no indemnity insurer would have offered cover on the
required basis (the same was true initially when Approved
Inspectors were allowed to set up in competition with LABC) and no
sane person would produce such reports without insurance. The HIP
market is/was too big for insurers to ignore.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:06:56 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2006-07-20, tim wrote:

"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.

A report paid for and held by the vendor? A waste of good trees. I
won't even bother looking at it. Completely pointless waste of time,
effort and money dreamed up by some **** who doesn't know the first
thing about buying and selling houses. The very last person in the
world I'm going to trust is the vendor.


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.

It's irrelevant. I don't care if Ove Arup did it and it cost
GBP15K. I'm not going to trust anything paid for and held
by the vendor.

This is the nub of the problem, in every other transaction the principle
is "Buyer beware" the HCR is culturally incompatible with this.

The actual rock on which this ill conceived voyage foundered was
however the lenders...


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:34:29 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-20, tim wrote:

"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.

A report paid for and held by the vendor? A waste of good trees. I
won't even bother looking at it. Completely pointless waste of time,
effort and money dreamed up by some **** who doesn't know the first
thing about buying and selling houses. The very last person in the
world I'm going to trust is the vendor.


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.

It's irrelevant. I don't care if Ove Arup did it and it cost
GBP15K. I'm not going to trust anything paid for and held
by the vendor.

The whole idea is almost as stupid as Dr. Drivel.

You are as thick as pig ****!!! The inspection/report would be mandatory,
as is an MOT, undertaken by an impartial approved person. What you are
saying is that all car MOTs are worthless.


The situation is not complete analogous on at least three counts.

1) People still get AA inspections on used cars they don't rely on the MOT.
2) The HCR is not a pass/fail like an MOT (AFAIK).
3) You don't have to have an HCR in order to use or continue using a home.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:19 +0100, Tim S wrote:

snip

Last house I looked at I wouldn't have bothered with a survey. I would
however have paid for a detailed inspection of the drains because I had
cause for concern. I'd rather spend my money on specialist reports about
things I've flagged up than pay someone to tell me less than I already
know.

I agree. It makes a lot of sense to select which items to have a really
close look at. A survey (even a 'full' structural survey) is fairly
shallow. You can decide for yourself which aspect you need to investigate
more closely even if you only have a basic understanding.
In fact a flat in a block, that are properly occupied not all on
the market at once, then a survey may be really useless looking at the
management companies account and the service charge accounts would be much
much more important.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:41:58 +0100 Joe wrote :
If that was true they would already exist, and would not
require government compulsion. You are aware that many
car dealers commission independent reports in advance of
any sale? That does not and did not require law, it makes
sense. If it made equal sense with houses, it would have
been done long ago, by estate agents looking for a USP.

No, because no indemnity insurer would have offered cover on the
required basis (the same was true initially when Approved
Inspectors were allowed to set up in competition with LABC) and no
sane person would produce such reports without insurance. The HIP
market is/was too big for insurers to ignore.


Is the need for large-scale insurance cover not a comment
on the perceived accuracy and usefulness of the report?

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

In article , Tim S
wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You might be surprised. Try and sell a house without double glazing.

Happens round here, doesn't seem to be a problem.

I think Drivel means "Try TO". Try AND makes no sense, quelle surprise.

You will find a house without double glazing will sell very slow. If there
is a sale the cost of replacement may be costed into the final price.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:34:29 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-20, tim wrote:

"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.

A report paid for and held by the vendor? A waste of good trees. I
won't even bother looking at it. Completely pointless waste of time,
effort and money dreamed up by some **** who doesn't know the first
thing about buying and selling houses. The very last person in the
world I'm going to trust is the vendor.


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.

It's irrelevant. I don't care if Ove Arup did it and it cost
GBP15K. I'm not going to trust anything paid for and held
by the vendor.

The whole idea is almost as stupid as Dr. Drivel.

You are as thick as pig ****!!! The inspection/report would be
mandatory,
as is an MOT, undertaken by an impartial approved person. What you are
saying is that all car MOTs are worthless.


The situation is not complete analogous on at least three counts.

1) People still get AA inspections on used cars they don't rely on the
MOT.

The AA goes further. If the big ends are knocking the MOT doesn't cover
that.

2) The HCR is not a pass/fail like an MOT (AFAIK).

Part of should be. and probably will be.

3) You don't have to have an HCR in
order to use or continue using a home.

It could be made mandatory that gas. Water and electrics are updated before
sale and occupation.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:06:56 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2006-07-20, tim wrote:

"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.

A report paid for and held by the vendor? A waste of good trees. I
won't even bother looking at it. Completely pointless waste of time,
effort and money dreamed up by some **** who doesn't know the first
thing about buying and selling houses. The very last person in the
world I'm going to trust is the vendor.


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.

It's irrelevant. I don't care if Ove Arup did it and it cost
GBP15K. I'm not going to trust anything paid for and held
by the vendor.

This is the nub of the problem, in every
other transaction the principle
is "Buyer beware" the HCR is culturally
incompatible with this.

And right to. A house is the most expensive thing 99% of us will buy. There
is also far too much con in hosuinga bnd hosue buying.

The actual rock on which this ill
conceived

An MOT for a house is not ill-conceived at all. Anyone you things
differently is a crook having something to hide somewhere.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"tim" wrote in message
...

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

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

Correct. I have no problem with such an inspection and report.

I have a problem with being expected to PAY for it.

You have something to hide. They are a brilliant idea.

If that was true they would already exist,

They are trying to get them - house MOT. That is/was the idea.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

A BCO would not be doing the test.

No, (s)he is the one signing off the job.

The point is a house MOT. The BCO is not involved. Boy are some people
dumb.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:19 +0100, Tim S wrote:

snip

Last house I looked at I wouldn't have bothered with a survey. I would
however have paid for a detailed inspection of the drains because I had
cause for concern. I'd rather spend my money on specialist reports about
things I've flagged up than pay someone to tell me less than I already
know.

I agree. It makes a lot of sense to select which items to have a really
close look at.

Are you people sane? The middle aged spinster is going to know if the
drains are dodgy, so get in all the relevant experts? What world are you
plantpots in?

Anyone who disagrees with a house MOT in principle is someone who is hiding
things.