On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:10:09 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:



The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of the
results.

That's true.

I agree, but that's a different thing to not believing it.

tim


They said on the news this morning that they are able to churn them
out quickly enough... with the current number of energy sureyors..
with another 2000 people about to join the ranks...

Do fensa and ciga certs have to be supplied? Does anyone check the
full extent of the quality of the works?
If you make changes as suggested then do you have to pay for another
energy audit?

Isn't one of the things lightbulbs? Will you be able to sue if they
take the lightbulbs with them when they move out?
--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:09:26 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


Do people believe the efficiency ratings on Fridges,
or do they pay someone to conduct their own survey?

I ignore such 'efficiency ratings', as there are so many variables
such as how often they are opened, ambient temperature, how full they
are - indeed the type of contents.

--
Frank Erskine

On 2007-08-18 14:09:26 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The HIP concept is fundamentally broken because it is something
commissioned by the seller. Any buyer with half a brain would want to be
in control of the evaluation and survey. As to the value of a survey
about energy profile, is it going to cause either party to take an action
or make a purchasing decision based on its contents? In the cloud cuckoo
land of Whitehall, possibly. In the real world, certainly not.

Do people believe the efficiency ratings on Fridges,
or do they pay someone to conduct their own survey?

tim

There is a difference of several orders of magnitude in the price of
the purchase.

Even so, do people base their purchasing decisions about fridges on
energy ratings or on other factors such as usability, design and price?

Possibly, there is more of a following for energy ratings on domestic
appliances, but I don't believe that there is for houses.

On 2007-08-18 14:10:09 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18 11:38:33 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

John Rumm wrote:
Phil wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6951171.stm


"Hips and EPCs can help families to save hundreds of pounds off their
fuel bills, and cut a million tonnes of carbon a year," she continued."

What a load of ********. It will help every householder spend another
£400 - £1000 for no return whatsoever!



Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance, which
has to be beneficial for both parties.

As a buyer, would you trust such a thing commissioned by the seller?



The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of the
results.

That's true.

I agree, but that's a different thing to not believing it.

tim

Personally I would neither trust such a thing, nor would I use it.

tim..... wrote:

The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of the
results.
That's true.

I agree, but that's a different thing to not believing it.

Whether one can believe them or not only time will tell. Much depends on
the assessment criteria.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would allow something like this to
influence their buying decision. If you want large Victorian semi
complete with many "period features" then that is what you want. The
fact that it may have no cavity walls is something that comes as part of
the package. Or in other words there are a multitude of criteria we have
for buying a place - and these come well above the energy efficiency,
especially as this is something that can be "fixed" or at least improved
later in a good many cases. Whereas moving the catchment area for a
school, or the size of the rooms is somewhat harder.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:59:11 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-08-18 14:09:26 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The HIP concept is fundamentally broken because it is something
commissioned by the seller. Any buyer with half a brain would want to be
in control of the evaluation and survey. As to the value of a survey
about energy profile, is it going to cause either party to take an action
or make a purchasing decision based on its contents? In the cloud cuckoo
land of Whitehall, possibly. In the real world, certainly not.

Do people believe the efficiency ratings on Fridges,
or do they pay someone to conduct their own survey?

tim

There is a difference of several orders of magnitude in the price of
the purchase.

Even so, do people base their purchasing decisions about fridges on
energy ratings or on other factors such as usability, design and price?

Possibly, there is more of a following for energy ratings on domestic
appliances, but I don't believe that there is for houses.

I tend to agree.
Firstly there is the fact that the energy rating applies to a model
rather than a specific unit. Whilst there is the possibility of fraud
(Which? found that most "A" rated boilers weren't quite "A") nevertheless
an A rated unit is still likely to be better than one with a lower rating.

Secondly when buying a fridge (especially) and to a lesser extent other
appliances, the energy rating is one of the major criteria. Such an
appliance can easily save or waste many times it purchase cost over its
lifetime. The energy costs running a house are currently a magnitude less
than financing its capital cost.




--
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

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:28:37 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

tim..... wrote:

The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of the
results.
That's true.

I agree, but that's a different thing to not believing it.

Whether one can believe them or not only time will tell. Much depends on
the assessment criteria.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would allow something like this to
influence their buying decision. If you want large Victorian semi
complete with many "period features" then that is what you want. The
fact that it may have no cavity walls is something that comes as part of
the package. Or in other words there are a multitude of criteria we have
for buying a place - and these come well above the energy efficiency,
especially as this is something that can be "fixed" or at least improved
later in a good many cases. Whereas moving the catchment area for a
school, or the size of the rooms is somewhat harder.

Totally agree. If you find the right housei in the right place for the right
price, are you really going to be put off because it's not insulated or wired
right, relatively cheap things to fix. Same applies to Part P as far as I'm
concerned. All you really need is your own surveyor to confirm the property's
condition and to highlight those items that require attention and those
requirements will vary from purchaser to purchaser.

Andy

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:05:46 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-08-18 11:38:33 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

John Rumm wrote:
Phil wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6951171.stm


"Hips and EPCs can help families to save hundreds of pounds off their
fuel bills, and cut a million tonnes of carbon a year," she continued."

What a load of ********. It will help every householder spend another
£400 - £1000 for no return whatsoever!



Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

As a buyer, would you trust such a thing commissioned by the seller?



I think your solicitor would probably be prepared to accept the LA search
and title deed info which might take one of the delays out of the process.

However the delays (which in part lead to gazumping and gazundering) are
usually the "chain" and/or the lender. The latter usually putting
formulaic and procedural hoops in place.



--
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

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice
of the
results.
That's true.

I agree, but that's a different thing to not believing it.

Whether one can believe them or not only time will tell. Much depends on
the assessment criteria.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would allow something like this to
influence their buying decision. If you want large Victorian semi
complete with many "period features" then that is what you want. The
fact that it may have no cavity walls is something that comes as part of
the package. Or in other words there are a multitude of criteria we have
for buying a place - and these come well above the energy efficiency,
especially as this is something that can be "fixed" or at least improved
later in a good many cases. Whereas moving the catchment area for a
school, or the size of the rooms is somewhat harder.

On a practical note it may be possible to establish by observation that
cavity wall insulation is in place in cavity walls but how on earth is
the presence of an insulated floor slab confirmed or, in a house with
solid walls, what insulation is behind any dry lining?

--
Roger Chapman

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18, Stuart Noble
wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Phil wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6951171.stm


"Hips and EPCs can help families to save hundreds of pounds off
their
fuel bills, and cut a million tonnes of carbon a year," she
continued."

What a load of ********. It will help every householder spend
another
£400 - £1000 for no return whatsoever!



Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather
like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in
advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.
The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any
notice of
the results.

Too long.

"The whole thing will be a farce, and no one will take any notice
of the
results."

There, that's better.

I for one have no intention whatsoever of paying the slightest
notice of
anything commissoned & held by the vendor. Ergo, the entire thing
is a
waste of
time, effort and money.

Then you aren't going to be buying a house.

Much of what's in the pack: copies of planning, guarentees,
lease, services charges, insurances and the draft contract are
things which the buyer has alwas asked the seller to supply.

If you're going to ignore these, you aren't going to get very far.

tim




OK take my current situation and suppose HIP's were in force at the
time. House put on the market in Feb 2006, sold almost immediately,
then we had to pull out of our purchase as found owner was a crook and
large barn had demolition order on it as built without pp. Delay in
finding new house, lost initial buyers who went elsewhere, found new
place, accepted offer on our house from second buyer. Then after a
couple of weeks he pulled out. Accepted third offer, all going ahead,
delays in new place with seller renewing planning permission.
Eventually pp granted but council declare land contaminated We pull
out as told 100K decontamination possibility. We find third place,
offer accepted and so far have kept our current buyer but now August
2007. So if we had had a HIP done it would be 18 months out of date.
In that time many many things could have changed that the searches in
the HIP would not show up. We could have assylum centres both sides
and a planned ring road running through the house for all the searches
would show up. HIPs are a total waste of time instigated by a nanny
government who should stop trying to micromanage everyones lives.

AWEM

In message , Andy Hall wrote

Even so, do people base their purchasing decisions about fridges on
energy ratings or on other factors such as usability, design and price?


If people based their purchase solely on the energy rating there would
be no need for the rating in the first place - all fridges would be in
the top class.

A 100 year old Victorian terrace single brick construction house with a
poor energy report is still going to sell at its current price (in the
south of England) because the modern energy efficient property is £100k
more!
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On 2007-08-18 15:46:35 +0100, Ed Sirett said:

I think your solicitor would probably be prepared to accept the LA search
and title deed info which might take one of the delays out of the process.

Except that if there is any delay at all between the production of the
pack and the transaction, the seller can have sold the property
elsewhere or instituted a variety of things resulting in a charge on
it. The Land Registry and LA searches are trivial anyway

On 2007-08-18 18:05:25 +0100, Alan said:

In message , Andy Hall wrote

Even so, do people base their purchasing decisions about fridges on
energy ratings or on other factors such as usability, design and price?


If people based their purchase solely on the energy rating there would
be no need for the rating in the first place - all fridges would be in
the top class.

A 100 year old Victorian terrace single brick construction house with a
poor energy report is still going to sell at its current price (in the
south of England) because the modern energy efficient property is £100k
more!

... and perhaps because some people don't *want* the modern box.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

There is no survey in a HIP

A complete waste of time and money then aren't they?

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

tim

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:57:23 +0100 someone who may be "tim....."
wrote this:-

If you want to know who lives where you can already
get this information.

Only up to a point. The point is that such information is
distributed and may involve looking through manual records.

How is this going to make it any worse.

It is going to make it much worse, because there will be one point
to look up the information which will be nicely gathered into
databases.

Criminals will undoubtedly love an identity register, it will be a
great help to 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

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:56:47 +0100 someone who may be Mogga
wrote this:-

Isn't one of the things lightbulbs? Will you be able to sue if they
take the lightbulbs with them when they move out?

There was a story a few months ago of one of these Mickey Mouse
"surveyors" who ignored the energy saving light bulbs, even though
these are supposedly part of the points system.


--
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

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:05:46 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of
the results.

That's true.

Indeed. I have looked at the methodology for Scotland and the rest
of the UK. It is mince and will not produce meaningful results. The
reason for this is that it has been dumbed down so that the sort of
people who work in property can do them, people "trained" after a
short course.

The full method, which will not be used as it is too complicated for
the poor little dears to do, would produce a rough stab at energy
ratings. I might believe what this method produces, I will pay no
attention to the Mickey Mouse version or the Mickey Mouse
"surveyors" that churn them out.


--
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

Andrew Mawson wrote:

2007. So if we had had a HIP done it would be 18 months out of date.

Unless you keep buying a new one every few months which is I susspect
their intention.

would show up. HIPs are a total waste of time instigated by a nanny
government who should stop trying to micromanage everyones lives.

Agreed!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-08-18 18:24:44 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

There is no survey in a HIP

A complete waste of time and money then aren't they?

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

tim

That would be a cop=out because it is very easy to check.

This kind of parameter information doesn't justify a vendor sponsored
information pack.

- The party preparing it might falsify it

- The party preparing it might make a mistake.

- Who do I sue if it's wrong?

In other words, I am still going to get the information myself.

Therefore, the information pack is pointless.

On 2007-08-18 18:47:10 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:56:47 +0100 someone who may be Mogga
wrote this:-

Isn't one of the things lightbulbs? Will you be able to sue if they
take the lightbulbs with them when they move out?

There was a story a few months ago of one of these Mickey Mouse
"surveyors" who ignored the energy saving light bulbs, even though
these are supposedly part of the points system.

That's one thing that they will have got right. The so-called energy
saving light bulbs are worthless.

If I were buying the property, ripping them out would be the first job.

tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

There is no survey in a HIP

A complete waste of time and money then aren't they?

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

Well, overlooking the fact that the real reason for HIPs was that Tony
"****wit" Blair caught a cold repeatedly on property transactions and
that he was extremely ****ed when he "lost" hudnreds of thosuands of
pounds when he sold his place in Islington. The example you give is
contrived and implies a mendacious vendor and a brain dead solicitor and
client. Does it not occur to you that a vendor willing to lie in the
circumstances you refer to will lie when preparing a HIP?

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18, tim..... wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18, Stuart Noble wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Phil wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6951171.stm


"Hips and EPCs can help families to save hundreds of pounds off their
fuel bills, and cut a million tonnes of carbon a year," she
continued."

What a load of ********. It will help every householder spend another
£400 - £1000 for no return whatsoever!



Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.
The energy survey will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of
the results.

Too long.

"The whole thing will be a farce, and no one will take any notice of the
results."

There, that's better.

I for one have no intention whatsoever of paying the slightest notice of
anything commissoned & held by the vendor. Ergo, the entire thing is a
waste of
time, effort and money.

Then you aren't going to be buying a house.

Much of what's in the pack: copies of planning, guarentees,
lease, services charges, insurances and the draft contract are
things which the buyer has alwas asked the seller to supply.

If you're going to ignore these, you aren't going to get very far.

Well, that answers my question in an earlier post. You are indeed very,
very,
very stupid.

Insulting people does not make you right.

tim

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18 18:24:44 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like
a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

There is no survey in a HIP

A complete waste of time and money then aren't they?

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

tim

That would be a cop=out because it is very easy to check.

I think you'd be very surprised how far into the purchase many
vendors expect you to go before they will currently get up off
their arse to find it.

This kind of parameter information doesn't justify a vendor sponsored
information pack.

IMHO it justifies a law to make it presented at initial marketing.

- The party preparing it might falsify it

And risk the penalty of doing so? I doubt it.

- The party preparing it might make a mistake.

Yes, they might, but I don't see this as a reason for
not having to try.

- Who do I sue if it's wrong?

The vendor. Why is this not obvious?

In other words, I am still going to get the information myself.

As a sometime purchasor of 5 flats, I have never got this
information for myself. It is always supplied by the vendor.

Agreed that at a later date the solicitor has to check it, but
if it turns out to be wrong I have a course of action to get
my costs refunded if the wrong information is material.
Currently, if I proceed on the basis of 'unknown' I am stuck
with my costs if the purchase falls through because of
discovering unsuitable details at a later date.

Therefore, the information pack is pointless.

For the type of information that currently 'always is' supplied
by the vendor, I don't agree.

tim

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18 18:47:10 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:56:47 +0100 someone who may be Mogga
wrote this:-

Isn't one of the things lightbulbs? Will you be able to sue if they
take the lightbulbs with them when they move out?

There was a story a few months ago of one of these Mickey Mouse
"surveyors" who ignored the energy saving light bulbs, even though
these are supposedly part of the points system.

That's one thing that they will have got right. The so-called energy
saving light bulbs are worthless.

If I were buying the property, ripping them out would be the first job.

Out of interest, to be replaced by what?

(I don't like them either, but simply because I don't like the light
that they produce, not because I think they are unnecessary)

tim

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:38:03 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:


Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

Well, overlooking the fact that the real reason for HIPs was that Tony
"****wit" Blair caught a cold repeatedly on property transactions and
that he was extremely ****ed when he "lost" hudnreds of thosuands of
pounds when he sold his place in Islington.

That must have taken some doing.

He could have been better advised by "Old Moore's Almanac of
Portentious Prognostications"

The example you give is
contrived and implies a mendacious vendor and a brain dead solicitor and
client.

Just *why* did they need to buy 2 flats in Bristol for their student
son, one just below the stamp duty threshold, one just above?

Just asking.

Just *why* did they need to involve a criminal to negotiate the deal
for them?

Just asking.

Does it not occur to you that a vendor willing to lie in the
circumstances you refer to will lie when preparing a HIP?

Especially if sourced through the channels they've been dealing with.

DG

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather
like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should
the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

There is no survey in a HIP

A complete waste of time and money then aren't they?

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

Well, overlooking the fact that the real reason for HIPs was that Tony
"****wit" Blair caught a cold repeatedly on property transactions and
that he was extremely ****ed when he "lost" hudnreds of thosuands of
pounds when he sold his place in Islington. The example you give is
contrived

It's not. It's the first question that I ask when I have received
details of a flat that interest me. The reply is usually along the
lines of "we don't know, we'll find out before exchange". My
answer is that "I shan't be viewing before they find out".
Sometimes they find out, sometimes they don't.

and implies a mendacious vendor

(I had to look that word up!), uncommitted is the word I
would use (hence the reason for my not being bothered
if I don't ever get to see the property)

and a brain dead solicitor and

Solicitor's are not involved at the stage I was referring to.

client. Does it not occur to you that a vendor willing to lie in the
circumstances you refer to will lie when preparing a HIP?

It does occur to me yes. But I obviously have a higher opinion
of my fellow man that you do (no surprises there). ISTM that
the penalties in place for not doing it right will mean that most
people will do it right (for those things which are of a purely
factual nature). I don't believe that the average person will go
around falsifying such info out of laziness and risk a fine, or
worse. The solicitor will find out later that they have lied and
I'd be adjusting my offer according, sending them a bill for my
costs (as per the misdeclaration act) if the deals breaks down
at that point.

tim

On 2007-08-18 23:51:27 +0100, "tim....." said:

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

tim

That would be a cop=out because it is very easy to check.

I think you'd be very surprised how far into the purchase many
vendors expect you to go before they will currently get up off
their arse to find it.

That's their choice. The market determines the behaviour. They want
to sell the house, they do what's required. it doesn't need the
interference of nanny state to make that happen.




This kind of parameter information doesn't justify a vendor sponsored
information pack.

IMHO it justifies a law to make it presented at initial marketing.

No it doesn't. This is a private transaction between two private
parties. Interference from the government is not required.


- The party preparing it might falsify it

And risk the penalty of doing so? I doubt it.

Are you commercially naive in other areas as well?



- The party preparing it might make a mistake.

Yes, they might, but I don't see this as a reason for
not having to try.

Of course it is. The basic principle in all purchasing is to assume
that the vendor will at least make a mistake and may also be less than
honest. If the buyer chooses not to take precautions then he
deserves to be burnt. The *last* participant to rely upon is the
government.



- Who do I sue if it's wrong?

The vendor. Why is this not obvious?

Fine. I can do that now. I don't need a government sponsored
information pack to help me do it.


In other words, I am still going to get the information myself.

As a sometime purchasor of 5 flats, I have never got this
information for myself. It is always supplied by the vendor.

Exactly. So there is no reason for government involvement.


Agreed that at a later date the solicitor has to check it, but
if it turns out to be wrong I have a course of action to get
my costs refunded if the wrong information is material.

It is far simpler to have the solicitor check it in the first place.


Currently, if I proceed on the basis of 'unknown' I am stuck
with my costs if the purchase falls through because of
discovering unsuitable details at a later date.

So don't proceed on the basis of 'unknown'

Do you imagine that the government is going to act as your advocate
just because you receive one of their silly information packs?


Therefore, the information pack is pointless.

For the type of information that currently 'always is' supplied
by the vendor, I don't agree.



The vendor can supply the information anyway. the government pack
adds no value and only adds a cost.

Completely pointless.

On 2007-08-19 00:16:43 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message

client. Does it not occur to you that a vendor willing to lie in the
circumstances you refer to will lie when preparing a HIP?

It does occur to me yes. But I obviously have a higher opinion
of my fellow man that you do (no surprises there).

In that case, I would recommend not buying and selling property in
Islington or with MPs.


ISTM that
the penalties in place for not doing it right will mean that most
people will do it right (for those things which are of a purely
factual nature). I don't believe that the average person will go
around falsifying such info out of laziness and risk a fine, or
worse. The solicitor will find out later that they have lied and
I'd be adjusting my offer according, sending them a bill for my
costs (as per the misdeclaration act) if the deals breaks down
at that point.

tim

I think that you are setting yourself up to be be burnt. Hopefully
the amount involved won't be too significant.

On 2007-08-18 23:53:47 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

That's one thing that they will have got right. The so-called energy
saving light bulbs are worthless.

If I were buying the property, ripping them out would be the first job.

Out of interest, to be replaced by what?

Proper incandescent lighting.


(I don't like them either, but simply because I don't like the light
that they produce,

Neither do I, and I won't buy and use them other than for certain
exterior lighting.


not because I think they are unnecessary)

They are unnecessary. It is focus on the wrong issue.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:28:15 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

There was a story a few months ago of one of these Mickey Mouse
"surveyors" who ignored the energy saving light bulbs, even though
these are supposedly part of the points system.

That's one thing that they will have got right. The so-called energy
saving light bulbs are worthless.

If I were buying the property, ripping them out would be the first job.

If such an action was only increasing your electricity bill then I
would leave you to burn your own money.



--
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

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea,
rather
like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in
advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I
have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible
should
the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

There is no survey in a HIP

A complete waste of time and money then aren't they?

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

Well, overlooking the fact that the real reason for HIPs was that
Tony
"****wit" Blair caught a cold repeatedly on property transactions
and
that he was extremely ****ed when he "lost" hudnreds of thosuands
of
pounds when he sold his place in Islington. The example you give
is
contrived

It's not. It's the first question that I ask when I have received
details of a flat that interest me. The reply is usually along the
lines of "we don't know, we'll find out before exchange". My
answer is that "I shan't be viewing before they find out".
Sometimes they find out, sometimes they don't.

and implies a mendacious vendor

(I had to look that word up!), uncommitted is the word I
would use (hence the reason for my not being bothered
if I don't ever get to see the property)

and a brain dead solicitor and

Solicitor's are not involved at the stage I was referring to.

client. Does it not occur to you that a vendor willing to lie in
the
circumstances you refer to will lie when preparing a HIP?

It does occur to me yes. But I obviously have a higher opinion
of my fellow man that you do (no surprises there). ISTM that
the penalties in place for not doing it right will mean that most
people will do it right (for those things which are of a purely
factual nature). I don't believe that the average person will go
around falsifying such info out of laziness and risk a fine, or
worse. The solicitor will find out later that they have lied and
I'd be adjusting my offer according, sending them a bill for my
costs (as per the misdeclaration act) if the deals breaks down
at that point.

tim



OK the house I pulled out from buying last year had the vendor making
the following lies:
a/Is the water metered: No (it was)
b/Is there planning permission for the barn: Yes (There wasn't, but
there was a demolition ordered by the council!)
c/What is your annual electricity bill: Figure supplied. (But it turns
out he's wired round the meter!)

Now if he was involved in producing a HIP he would have repeated those
lies. In the event he sold to another mug and skipped the country
without paying the house agent. New people couldn't get contents
insurance as he'd faked a burgalary. EDF wouldn't reconnect the
electricity due to the meter issue, and he sold the paddock 'for cash'
to five separate people.

These sort of people ARE out there and no way would I trust the
contents of a HIP thats been produced by the vendor.

AWEM

in 659914 20070818 114849 (Steve Firth) wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.

Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

I was buying a house a few years and had already paid for a survey when the
vendor informed us that she had found another buyer. When I suggested her
new buyer help cut my losses by purchasing the survey from me I was told by
one of the solicitors that the survey was only valid for the person who paid for it.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18 23:51:27 +0100, "tim....." said:

Not if you are buying a flat and previously the answer to
the question "how many years are left on the lease"
was "I don't know".

tim

That would be a cop=out because it is very easy to check.

I think you'd be very surprised how far into the purchase many
vendors expect you to go before they will currently get up off
their arse to find it.

That's their choice. The market determines the behaviour. They want to
sell the house, they do what's required. it doesn't need the interference
of nanny state to make that happen.




This kind of parameter information doesn't justify a vendor sponsored
information pack.

IMHO it justifies a law to make it presented at initial marketing.

No it doesn't. This is a private transaction between two private
parties. Interference from the government is not required.


- The party preparing it might falsify it

And risk the penalty of doing so? I doubt it.

Are you commercially naive in other areas as well?

As I said to Steve.

I give the other party in a transaction between ordinary
individuals (I.e. those that are not trained to be slimy)
the benefit of doubt in believing he is honest and telling
me the truth about things that he *knows* I am going to
check later. This sems to me to be a common courtesy.

I actually find the suggestion that I am stupid to do so,
as insulting. Do you really go around thinking that every
person you have a conversation with is telling you lies.

- Who do I sue if it's wrong?

The vendor. Why is this not obvious?

Fine. I can do that now. I don't need a government sponsored
information pack to help me do it.

Not if he has no requirement to supply before excahnge and he
resists doing so, you don't.

In other words, I am still going to get the information myself.

As a sometime purchasor of 5 flats, I have never got this
information for myself. It is always supplied by the vendor.

Exactly. So there is no reason for government involvement.

As above, the new rules requires disclosure before I have
taken time off to visit the property. The old rules require
disclosure at some point before exchange after I have wasted
good time and money investigating a property that later turns
out to be unsuitable.

As (as I have said) a habitual purchaser of flats, I consider
this change to be necessary one. Perhaps you have never
tried buying a flat before if you can't see a need for it?

Agreed that at a later date the solicitor has to check it, but
if it turns out to be wrong I have a course of action to get
my costs refunded if the wrong information is material.

It is far simpler to have the solicitor check it in the first place.

This costs me money. Money which I will expect to reclaim
if it turns out I have been lied to. But I can't get that money
back if I am met with "Don't know, find out for yourself".

Currently, if I proceed on the basis of 'unknown' I am stuck
with my costs if the purchase falls through because of
discovering unsuitable details at a later date.

So don't proceed on the basis of 'unknown'

I usually don't. But It does annoy me that they expect me to.

Do you imagine that the government is going to act as your advocate just
because you receive one of their silly information packs?

I don't understand this question. All I am saying is that a
requirement to disclose the information before I waste time
viewing the property is not unreasonable. I can enfore this
right myself thanks very much.

Therefore, the information pack is pointless.

For the type of information that currently 'always is' supplied
by the vendor, I don't agree.



The vendor can supply the information anyway.

But they often dont. Are you deliberately missing this point?

the government pack adds no value and only adds a cost.

I disagree. As I have said, for the type of information that I
am discussing, I believe it adds *considerable* value to the
process. It actually costs the vendor diddy squat as all
of the information is in documents that they should already
have in their posession (if they've thrown them away, which
many do, that's their stupidity that costing them, not
government legislation).

I accept that some of it adds cost, but I'm nt discussing that
part here.

tim

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...



OK the house I pulled out from buying last year had the vendor making
the following lies:
a/Is the water metered: No (it was)
b/Is there planning permission for the barn: Yes (There wasn't, but
there was a demolition ordered by the council!)
c/What is your annual electricity bill: Figure supplied. (But it turns
out he's wired round the meter!)

Now if he was involved in producing a HIP he would have repeated those
lies.

One swallow does not a summer make. One individual example
or wrongdoing does not make the rule unreasonable.

In the event he sold to another mug and skipped the country
without paying the house agent.

How did he do this? It is normal for the solicitor to deduct
this from the proceeds before handing the money over.

New people couldn't get contents
insurance as he'd faked a burgalary. EDF wouldn't reconnect the
electricity due to the meter issue, and he sold the paddock 'for cash'
to five separate people.

More fool them then. You cannoy transact a property transfer
by hading over 'cash' (obvious you can pay in cash but you need
the proper paperwork in place first).

These sort of people ARE out there and no way would I trust the
contents of a HIP thats been produced by the vendor.

As above. Are you really going to think that every supplier
of an HIP is on the con because you have one example.

Do you think that every random caller to you property is
casing your house to rob it, because you know someone
who was robbed.

Do you think that everybody you pass in the street is out to
pick your pocket because you read in the press that some
people do have their pockets picked.

This extrapolation that you have made for HIPs (but presumably
not for the individual callers and random people) is IMHO most
unreasonable.

tim

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-18 23:53:47 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

That's one thing that they will have got right. The so-called energy
saving light bulbs are worthless.

If I were buying the property, ripping them out would be the first job.

Out of interest, to be replaced by what?

Proper incandescent lighting.

Of the type that is shortly to be banned?

I can see the possibility of stocking up with bulbs before
this happens, but if people have replaced the fittings I
think you might be stuck.

tim

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-19 00:16:43 +0100, "tim....." said:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message

client. Does it not occur to you that a vendor willing to lie in the
circumstances you refer to will lie when preparing a HIP?

It does occur to me yes. But I obviously have a higher opinion
of my fellow man that you do (no surprises there).

In that case, I would recommend not buying and selling property in
Islington or with MPs.


ISTM that
the penalties in place for not doing it right will mean that most
people will do it right (for those things which are of a purely
factual nature). I don't believe that the average person will go
around falsifying such info out of laziness and risk a fine, or
worse. The solicitor will find out later that they have lied and
I'd be adjusting my offer according, sending them a bill for my
costs (as per the misdeclaration act) if the deals breaks down
at that point.

tim

I think that you are setting yourself up to be be burnt. Hopefully the
amount involved won't be too significant.

And I think you have a poor view of the average person.

Note: *average* person, not the one in thousand that's a shyster.

tim

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bob Martin
saying something like:

I was told by
one of the solicitors that the survey was only valid for the person who paid for it.

Hardly surprising if his mate (a surveyor) was going to lose out on
another survey.
--

Dave

Bob Martin wrote:
in 659914 20070818 114849 (Steve Firth) wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

Without the energy survey it seems like a sensible idea, rather like a
log book for the house. All the tedious stuff gets done in advance,
which has to be beneficial for both parties.
Except it's not. I for one will not trust a survey that I have not
commissioned and at present it's unclear who is responsible should the
HIP turn out to be inaccurate.

I was buying a house a few years and had already paid for a survey when the
vendor informed us that she had found another buyer. When I suggested her
new buyer help cut my losses by purchasing the survey from me I was told by
one of the solicitors that the survey was only valid for the person who paid for it.

So it seems the current system is as good as it gets then.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-19, Andrew Mawson wrote:


OK the house I pulled out from buying last year had the vendor making
the following lies:
a/Is the water metered: No (it was)
b/Is there planning permission for the barn: Yes (There wasn't, but
there was a demolition ordered by the council!)
c/What is your annual electricity bill: Figure supplied. (But it turns
out he's wired round the meter!)

Now if he was involved in producing a HIP he would have repeated those
lies. In the event he sold to another mug and skipped the country
without paying the house agent. New people couldn't get contents
insurance as he'd faked a burgalary. EDF wouldn't reconnect the
electricity due to the meter issue, and he sold the paddock 'for cash'
to five separate people.

These sort of people ARE out there and no way would I trust the
contents of a HIP thats been produced by the vendor.

They can always sell to the likes of "tim..." Apparently, if it's in a 4
ring
binder, it must be true.

No, because my solicitor will check it later.

What part of my point is it that you are deliberately
ignoring

tim

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-19, tim..... wrote:

I give the other party in a transaction between ordinary
individuals (I.e. those that are not trained to be slimy)
the benefit of doubt in believing he is honest and telling
me the truth about things that he *knows* I am going to
check later.

Then you will be ripped off.

How come. My solicitor will be checking it later.

I will have my time/money wasted yes, but with the new rules I
can sue for that, under the old rules I can't.

tim