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

There seem to be several reasons for this:
Cost of the HIPs (Home Information Packs) was looking like it
was going through the roof;
Nowhere near enough HI's (Home Inspectors) have been trained (I
know from talking with one of the training bodies that almost all
those who came forward for training were completely unsuitable);
Banks/Building Societies have told government they won't accept
the survey in the HIP;
There has been a significant public backlash against the scheme.

It should be noted that HIPs are not abandoned yet -- only the
survey element (Home Condition Report). However, strangely, the
SAP evaluation is still in, which is done by the Home Inspectors
during the Home Condition Report inspection. Quite how this is
supposed to work I can't imagine.

There are also a large number of HI who have funded their own
training who will now not be required -- I wonder what happens
about that.

Yet another cock-up from start to finish -- exactly as predicted
by everyone who gave the issue even the slightest thought at the
outset.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Link he http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5192100.stm

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

Yet another cock-up from start to finish -- exactly as predicted
by everyone who gave the issue even the slightest thought at the
outset.

I was just about to say - "gee - we couldn't see that coming could we?"

Cheers
Dan.

Hi Andrew
I sent you an OT question via email a day or two ago - did you get
it?

Thanks
Jon N

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

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

I have only one comment, as per Nelson the thug from the Simpsons:


Ha ha.


And good riddance.

Tim

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
snip
Yet another cock-up from start to finish -- exactly as predicted
by everyone who gave the issue even the slightest thought at the
outset.

The government is good at that, organising large sweeping changes, often
hugely unpopular and rarely get off the ground (ID cards is another dead
herring), but hey-ho, a lot of people have already made millions from them
so the main objective has been fulfilled - complete success!

In article .com,
"jkn" writes:
Hi Andrew
I sent you an OT question via email a day or two ago - did you get
it?

gets over 1000 junk mails a day, so I
haven't read emails sent to it for years. I just trawled through
and dug out your email. I didn't persue the BT Converse 2025 headset
connection, so I didn't work out the connections, sorry.

--
Andrew Gabriel

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.



There seem to be several reasons for this:
Cost of the HIPs (Home Information Packs) was looking like it
was going through the roof;
Nowhere near enough HI's (Home Inspectors) have been trained (I
know from talking with one of the training bodies that almost all
those who came forward for training were completely unsuitable);

It would be interesting to know why they were considered to be unsuitable -
i.e. whether they really *were* unsuitable, or weren't able to do the sharp
intake of breath, the tapping of the clipboard and recite "It's more than my
job's worth in 8 different languages"

Banks/Building Societies have told government they won't accept
the survey in the HIP;
There has been a significant public backlash against the scheme.

It should be noted that HIPs are not abandoned yet -- only the
survey element (Home Condition Report). However, strangely, the
SAP evaluation is still in, which is done by the Home Inspectors
during the Home Condition Report inspection. Quite how this is
supposed to work I can't imagine.

It won't. In a few months time, that will be quietly dropped as well.



There are also a large number of HI who have funded their own
training who will now not be required -- I wonder what happens
about that.

Hopefully, having lost their money without recompense, they will seek proper
gainful employment.



Yet another cock-up from start to finish -- exactly as predicted
by everyone who gave the issue even the slightest thought at the
outset.



I wonder if part P could be similarly targetted......

Must drop another letter to local MPs.

Hi Andrew

gets over 1000 junk mails a day, so I
haven't read emails sent to it for years. I just trawled through
and dug out your email. I didn't persue the BT Converse 2025 headset
connection, so I didn't work out the connections, sorry.

Yeah - I just came across an old discussion on spam where you mention
this.

OK on the headset connection. If I get anywhere I'll let you know.

Cheers
Jon N

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:
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.

There seem to be several reasons for this:
Cost of the HIPs (Home Information Packs) was looking like it
was going through the roof;
Nowhere near enough HI's (Home Inspectors) have been trained (I
know from talking with one of the training bodies that almost all
those who came forward for training were completely unsuitable);

It would be interesting to know why they were considered to be unsuitable -

The government assumed people from the building trade would apply
to become HI's. What actually happened was that unskilled people
with no knowledge whatsoever of building construction came forward
for training, and that's not what the training courses were geared
up to deal with. For example, most of them were never going to be
able to be qualified to carry out the SAP assessment, and would
have had to sub-contract it (one reason the price has rocketed).

It should be noted that HIPs are not abandoned yet -- only the
survey element (Home Condition Report). However, strangely, the
SAP evaluation is still in, which is done by the Home Inspectors
during the Home Condition Report inspection. Quite how this is
supposed to work I can't imagine.

It won't. In a few months time, that will be quietly dropped as well.

That's the one part designed to meet an EU directive. I'm sure
we've gold plated it though, just like we normally do.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On 18 Jul 2006 19:57:50 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

However, strangely, the
SAP evaluation is still in, which is done by the Home Inspectors
during the Home Condition Report inspection. Quite how this is
supposed to work I can't imagine.

It is something dreamt up by party politicians, so by definition it
is unlikely to work.

Anyone with an interest in such things will be able to gauge the
running costs by using their eyes and asking a few questions. Those
who are not interested are not interested. Thus the whole idea is
just another example of pointless nanny state tactics. It gives
administrators another box to tick, but is not useful to "real
people".

There are also a large number of HI who have funded their own
training who will now not be required -- I wonder what happens
about that.

They are in the same position as those who believed in company
pensions, those railway staff who invested their meager savings in
Railtrack and do on. The Labour Party doesn't give a **** about
them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"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. 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.

You may find it is more on hold than abandoned.

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.

If it were done properly that might just possibly be true. However, I
suspect it would end up like most surveys - done from a distance with so
many disclaimers that it'd not be worth the paper it's written on.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:32:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

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.



There seem to be several reasons for this:
Cost of the HIPs (Home Information Packs) was looking like it
was going through the roof;
Nowhere near enough HI's (Home Inspectors) have been trained (I
know from talking with one of the training bodies that almost all
those who came forward for training were completely unsuitable);

It would be interesting to know why they were considered to be unsuitable -
i.e. whether they really *were* unsuitable, or weren't able to do the sharp
intake of breath, the tapping of the clipboard and recite "It's more than my
job's worth in 8 different languages"

Banks/Building Societies have told government they won't accept
the survey in the HIP;
There has been a significant public backlash against the scheme.

It should be noted that HIPs are not abandoned yet -- only the
survey element (Home Condition Report). However, strangely, the
SAP evaluation is still in, which is done by the Home Inspectors
during the Home Condition Report inspection. Quite how this is
supposed to work I can't imagine.

It won't. In a few months time, that will be quietly dropped as well.



There are also a large number of HI who have funded their own
training who will now not be required -- I wonder what happens
about that.

Hopefully, having lost their money without recompense, they will seek proper
gainful employment.



Yet another cock-up from start to finish -- exactly as predicted
by everyone who gave the issue even the slightest thought at the
outset.



I wonder if part P could be similarly targetted......

Must drop another letter to local MPs.

I think you'll be backing a loser.
Firstly the matter is done and that means a magnitudes more effort to
change things.

Secondly the real reason for Part P is the same as Part F,G,J
L etc. ISTM it's to introduce a culture of qualification,
registration and self-certification which makes being casually
self-employed as a general workman very awkward.

Either you have to specialise or you have to be employed by a company
which is registered. It's just too damn expensive to be registered for
more than couple of trades, and very hard if you are not full time.

IIRC around 75% of all self-employed people are in construction and
related trades. ISTM that the treasury or other departments want to
control this sector. So far I expect they have simply driven it
underground.



--
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

"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.

If it were done properly that might just possibly be true. However, I
suspect it would end up like most surveys - done from a distance with so
many disclaimers that it'd not be worth the paper it's written on.

If gas and electricity are tested and inspected than that is one way down
the road that is right.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:51:39 UTC, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

If gas and electricity are tested and inspected than that is one way down
the road that is right.

It's one way to sort out the dangerous Drivel installations.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

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.

If it were done properly that might just possibly be true. However, I
suspect it would end up like most surveys - done from a distance with so
many disclaimers that it'd not be worth the paper it's written on.

If gas and electricity are tested and inspected than that is one way down
the road that is right.

That was never even part of the now abandoned plans.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

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.


If it were done properly that might just possibly be true. However, I
suspect it would end up like most surveys - done from a distance with so
many disclaimers that it'd not be worth the paper it's written on.

If gas and electricity are tested and inspected than that is one way down
the road that is right.


That was never even part of the now abandoned plans.

For gawds sake, keep your voice down. They just might read this and put
it into practice. You know what this control freak group guvmint are
like :-(

Dave

In article ,
Dave writes:
For gawds sake, keep your voice down. They just might read this and put
it into practice. You know what this control freak group guvmint are
like :-(

I wish I thought I had any such influence with them.
However, I don't donate any money or make loans to them.

--
Andrew Gabriel

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 a diminution in government involvement in people's daily
lives is brilliant news.

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.

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



You may find it is more on hold than abandoned.


As long as the hold remains for the next 150 years or so, we can say it's on
hold if you like.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:52:04 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Dave writes:
For gawds sake, keep your voice down. They just might read this and put
it into practice. You know what this control freak group guvmint are
like :-(

I wish I thought I had any such influence with them.
However, I don't donate any money or make loans to them.



You do, you know ;-)

"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. It should be looked at again and
implemented.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave writes:
For gawds sake, keep your voice down. They just might read this and put
it into practice. You know what this control freak group guvmint are
like :-(

I wish I thought I had any such influence with them.
However, I don't donate any money or make loans to them.

I didn't think Little Middle England would.

"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? You probably do. I suppose you think the same about
MOT inspectors too. But you do come from Little Middle England.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave writes:
For gawds sake, keep your voice down. They just might read this and put
it into practice. You know what this control freak group guvmint are
like :-(

I wish I thought I had any such influence with them.
However, I don't donate any money or make loans to them.

The tiny mind of Little Middle England. Amazing. This pillock hasn't looked
at the concept of what was being implemented - which is very, very, sound
indeed, a house MOT. He just wallows in delight because he misguidedly
votes for the inbred Tories. You all know, the party that has a habit of
ruining the country at ever opportunity and lining the pockets of the chosen
few, of which he is not one.

Pathetic!!!!

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:34:25 +0100, Ed Sirett
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:32:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

[-snip-]

I wonder if part P could be similarly targetted......

Must drop another letter to local MPs.

I think you'll be backing a loser.
Firstly the matter is done and that means a magnitudes more effort to
change things.

Secondly the real reason for Part P is the same as Part F,G,J
L etc. ISTM it's to introduce a culture of qualification,
registration and self-certification which makes being casually
self-employed as a general workman very awkward.

Either you have to specialise or you have to be employed by a company
which is registered. It's just too damn expensive to be registered for
more than couple of trades, and very hard if you are not full time.

IIRC around 75% of all self-employed people are in construction and
related trades. ISTM that the treasury or other departments want to
control this sector. So far I expect they have simply driven it
underground.

IMHO Part P and it's ilk are there to discourage DIY and the use of
self employed "handymen". They want everyone to use large firms so
that the gov't get more Tax revenue. It all about Tax IMHO.

Mark

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:48:05 +0100, Dave wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

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.


If it were done properly that might just possibly be true. However, I
suspect it would end up like most surveys - done from a distance with so
many disclaimers that it'd not be worth the paper it's written on.

If gas and electricity are tested and inspected than that is one way down
the road that is right.


That was never even part of the now abandoned plans.

For gawds sake, keep your voice down. They just might read this and put
it into practice. You know what this control freak group guvmint are
like :-(

Dave

It's already here in part.
Certain classes of government employees (e.g teachers and some health
professions) are offered subsidised mortgages.

A condition of these loans is that the property has gas and electrical
certification.

It'll only be a matter of time before a suit [1] at one or two of the
main lenders thinks this is the best way they can protect themselves.


[1] Someone who has the job of making things safer for the lender and
falls into the trap a piece of paper can do this.

--
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

"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.

It should be looked at again and implemented.


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

tim

"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)

tim

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?

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

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Do you think a Part P inspector ...

No such person.

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

Yes, actually - and very definitely. What you're talking about here is
assessing the condition of an existing electrical installation, i.e. a
"periodic inspection." This is indeed carried out according to a quite
well-defined set of rules, but the rules allow for limitations of
inspection and testing to be agreed between the person doing the work
(electrician, electrical surveyor) and the "person ordering the work" -
i.e. the vendor in this case. So if the vendor says they don't want a
particular circuit isolated for testing it won't be. If they don't want
covers or wiring accessories removed for inspection because of the risk
of damage to decorations, they won't be. And so on. The limitations
will be noted in the report, but their significance won't necessarily be
appreciated by the casual reader.

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.

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

Your analogy with the MOT is quite invalid, IMO. You could compare,
say, a landlord's gas safety check with an MOT, but not an HCR. The HCR
is just a report - you don't pass or fail it.

--
Andy

"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.

"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. 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.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:34:25 +0100, Ed Sirett
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:32:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

[-snip-]

I wonder if part P could be similarly targetted......

Must drop another letter to local MPs.

I think you'll be backing a loser.
Firstly the matter is done and that means a magnitudes more effort to
change things.

Secondly the real reason for Part P is the same as Part F,G,J
L etc. ISTM it's to introduce a culture of qualification,
registration and self-certification which makes being casually
self-employed as a general workman very awkward.

Either you have to specialise or you have to be employed by a company
which is registered. It's just too damn expensive to be registered for
more than couple of trades, and very hard if you are not full time.

IIRC around 75% of all self-employed people are in construction and
related trades. ISTM that the treasury or other departments want to
control this sector. So far I expect they have simply driven it
underground.

IMHO Part P and it's ilk are there to discourage DIY and the use of
self employed "handymen". They want everyone to use large firms so
that the gov't get more Tax revenue. It all about Tax IMHO.

Not so. To discourage the cowboys - like jack of all trades kitchen
fitters, who, do some appalling gas/water./electric work, But nice tiling
guv. Which it is now doing to a large extent. If you are rewiring the
house, approx ~£90 get a Part P check and "anyone" can do the work in any
room.

"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.

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

Yes, actually - and very definitely.

I can't account for your cowboy dealings.

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.

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.

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

Parts may be failed like electricity and gas which should be included. But
any focus points should be brought up: old inefficient gas boiler, poor
shower performance, lead water mains, etc.

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.
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.

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

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. A one-size-fits-all survey package is not
appropriate for every property. it is quite individual.

A mortgage lender may well specify a set of checks to be made in order to
protect his collateral for a loan. That's his affair and of course the buyer
pays. The buyer may be happy with that as being sufficient. He is paying
for this evaluation and indeed, ultimately for the property.

I would not rely on one of these vendor funded packs because a) I didn't pay
for it, b) I didn't specify the work and c) I will make the decisions on the
information that I need in order to make an informed purchasing decision.

I neither need nor want the government to have any part in that whatsoever.
It is not their business because they are not paying.

Therefore this becomes yet another stealth tax and job creation scheme.

Quite rightly it should be buried.





Do you think a Part P inspector pulls back on the rules because
of the person paying? You probably do. I suppose you think the same about
MOT inspectors too.

These are both quite separate issues.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

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

Periodic Inspections are quite big business, yes (mainly in the
no-domestic sectors though), but they are checking for compliance with
BS 7671, not Part P. Part P itself only contains a vaguely worded
requirement for adequate provision to be made for electrical safety -
most of it's concerned with what is and isn't notifiable work.

[HCR]
It should include all services.

Perhaps, but the fact is that, as proposed, it didn't.

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. It is cons like this that these reports should bring to
the surface.

Part P now makes doing that sort of thing illegal (at least in
principle). I remain unconvinced that the HCR, as currently conceived,
would help in the slightest in "bringing it 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.

No-one's going to disagree with that. It's down to the buyer's due
diligence in the end - caveat emptor and all that.

--
Andy

"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.

The idea is great. They can now give it some more thought and them
implement.

Matt, the lunatics here were delighted not wanting one of any sort.
Shameful indeed.

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.

Have a look on the back of the MOT certificate and notice the line ' It
does not mean the the vehicle fully meets all legal requirments or that it
will continue to be roadworthy for the next year'.

Dave

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.

If I buy a car, I certainly don't rely on the MOT as evidence of condition.


I don't with a house either.

I will make my own assessment, with appropriate professional advice if I
choose, and pay for it myself.

Certainly I don't need, want or expect to pay for the government's choices on
what it thinks is important among my decision making criteria.