HIPs are dead ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

On May 20, 11:18*am, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

All the domestic ones I've come across are simple box ticking
exercises that could be done by a trained monkey. Unless he's any
different, do him a favour and tell him to get a proper job.

MBQ

On 20 May, 11:21, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On May 20, 11:18*am, sm_jamieson wrote:

HIPs are dead ?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

All the domestic ones I've come across are simple box ticking
exercises that could be done by a trained monkey. Unless he's any
different, do him a favour and tell him to get a proper job.

I didn't say he agreed with it. But he is making money out of it ;-)
Simon.

On 20/05/10 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

Good - one bit of pointless crap shoved in the bin. Several thousand
more to go...

Pity Cameron hasn't grown enough balls yet to tell the EU to stuff the
Energy Assessment up Von Rompui's backend....


--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just quantitative
if someone tries a rush job.

On May 20, 11:49*am, sm_jamieson wrote:
On 20 May, 11:21, "Man at B&Q" wrote: On May 20, 11:18*am, sm_jamieson wrote:

HIPs are dead ?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

All the domestic ones I've come across are simple box ticking
exercises that could be done by a trained monkey. Unless he's any
different, do him a favour and tell him to get a proper job.

I didn't say he agreed with it. But he is making money out of it ;-)
Simon.

Tell him to get a conscience, then ;-)

MBQ

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
HIPs are dead ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the search
requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller I found an
good thing. The energy survey was always at most a finger in the air waving
thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were some
positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more for making the
same searches.

On 20 May, 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?

They were a great idea (do the legwork once, by the seller,
beforehand) but like energy certificates (Don't buy this house if it
has the wrong lightbulbs, and wind turbines are a good idea) they were
a pitiful implementation that delivered no useful benefit afterwards.

So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Probably through some heat-recovery greywater system.

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On 20/05/10 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

Good - one bit of pointless crap shoved in the bin. Several thousand
more to go...

Pity Cameron hasn't grown enough balls yet to tell the EU to stuff the
Energy Assessment up Von Rompui's backend....

The housing minister was interviewed on You and Yours (Radio 4, just
after midday). I only caught the end of it, but they are planning on
using the EPC for some future legislation relating to carrying forward
cost of energy saving measures over long payback periods.

EU never required the EPC. It merely required governments to gather
some overall statistics on the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
This could be based on the sampled surveys local authorities have to
do anyway. However, it was converted into gold plated ******** in this
country, as is very often the case.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 20 May, 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?

They were a great idea (do the legwork once, by the seller,
beforehand) but like energy certificates (Don't buy this house if it
has the wrong lightbulbs, and wind turbines are a good idea) they were
a pitiful implementation that delivered no useful benefit afterwards.

So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Probably through some heat-recovery greywater system.

Basically yes. Its a bureaucratic overhead that neither totally
reassures the buyer (like a proper survey should) nor helps the seller sell.

Pure job creation and no real benefit.

Best to scrap the whole thing and look again at how we trade houses, if
its truly broken.,. BUT was it ever broken? I don't think it was.. In
fact, I cant recall what issues it was supposed to solve, if any.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


EU never required the EPC. It merely required governments to gather
some overall statistics on the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
This could be based on the sampled surveys local authorities have to
do anyway. However, it was converted into gold plated ******** in this
country, as is very often the case.

yes.

The BBC was whingeing on about how '75% of the cabinet come from Oxbridge'

Phew. About time!

If I had my way, they would also have 'cost benefit analysis for the
nation' tattooed across their dicks, to remind them every time they took
a leak.

You will have to work out a suitable alternative for those of the femail
persuasion..

So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My thoughts exactly. No doubt the next government will reinstate the
baby plus some extra bathwater. And so we go on

js.b1 wrote:
Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just quantitative
if someone tries a rush job.

For ****'s sake js.b1 - will you PLEASE not cut out all of the message(s)
that you're replying to. Cutting superfluous text is good netiquette but
someone coming along later needs SOME form of context for your postings to
make sense. You're taking the time and effort to sit at the keyboard and
type, so presumably you want someone to read what you're saying. Please make
it easier for us to do so.

stuart noble wrote:

So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My thoughts exactly. No doubt the next government will reinstate the
baby plus some extra bathwater. And so we go on

I doubt it. Many political failures are washed up on the sands of time,
never to be gathered up again.

As a bit of an aviation buff, there are so many strange planes out there
that never ever made the light of day: for every ten that get pencilled
up, or 6 that make prototype, only one ever makes it to production, and
less than 10% of those are really useful planes that have long service
lives.


I think the DC3 is probably the longest service type there is. 70 years
plus and a few still going..

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 20 May, 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?
They were a great idea (do the legwork once, by the seller,
beforehand) but like energy certificates (Don't buy this house if it
has the wrong lightbulbs, and wind turbines are a good idea) they were
a pitiful implementation that delivered no useful benefit afterwards.

So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Probably through some heat-recovery greywater system.
Basically yes. Its a bureaucratic overhead that neither totally
reassures the buyer (like a proper survey should) nor helps the seller sell.

Pure job creation and no real benefit.

Best to scrap the whole thing and look again at how we trade houses, if
its truly broken.,. BUT was it ever broken? I don't think it was.. In
fact, I cant recall what issues it was supposed to solve, if any.

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

Buying/selling in the US was made much easier for me by the fact that
the (binding) contract is signed at the beginning of the process
(therefore no gazumping possible).

In the UK you don't reach that point until much later in the process
(and often not until completion day).

See? there's a classic example of something that can be fairly esily
fixed without any costs and without a HIPS.

In our case we were (in our view) screwed by the buyers who waited until
late in the process and then sprang some demands based on the survey
(and they had the information much earlier in the process). So I would
say how about a strict timetable:

1) initial agreement and price settled subject to survey, but seller
prevented from accepting another offer (prevents gazumping)

2) buyer then has three weeks to get survey done and notify seller of
any defects he wants remedied or price reduced because of.

3) after three weeks no price alterations or defect considerations
possible, but another two weeks allowed for confirming any title
questions and questions related to environmental issues

4) After five weeks, then, or earlier by agreement, *automatic* exchange
of contracts and buyer is locked in. During the five weeks buyer can
pull out at any time.


If/when I sell a house again I'm gonna unilaterally make the above be my
framework anyway.

It would also help if the set of documents the seller fills in could be
more standardised and available by download. That way a seller can start
working on those the minute you think about putting the house on the
market.

And go for fixed legal fees. To avoid lawyers having mutually profitable
arguments over which way round the kitchen taps ought to be, etc.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 20 May, 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?

They were a great idea (do the legwork once, by the seller,
beforehand) but like energy certificates (Don't buy this house if it
has the wrong lightbulbs, and wind turbines are a good idea) they were
a pitiful implementation that delivered no useful benefit afterwards.

So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Probably through some heat-recovery greywater system.

Basically yes. Its a bureaucratic overhead that neither totally
reassures the buyer (like a proper survey should) nor helps the seller
sell.

Pure job creation and no real benefit.

Best to scrap the whole thing and look again at how we trade houses, if
its truly broken.,. BUT was it ever broken? I don't think it was.. In
fact, I cant recall what issues it was supposed to solve, if any.

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

Buying/selling in the US was made much easier for me by the fact that
the (binding) contract is signed at the beginning of the process
(therefore no gazumping possible).

In the UK you don't reach that point until much later in the process
(and often not until completion day).

In our case we were (in our view) screwed by the buyers who waited until
late in the process and then sprang some demands based on the survey
(and they had the information much earlier in the process). So I would
say how about a strict timetable:

1) initial agreement and price settled subject to survey, but seller
prevented from accepting another offer (prevents gazumping)

2) buyer then has three weeks to get survey done and notify seller of
any defects he wants remedied or price reduced because of.

3) after three weeks no price alterations or defect considerations
possible, but another two weeks allowed for confirming any title
questions and questions related to environmental issues

4) After five weeks, then, or earlier by agreement, *automatic* exchange
of contracts and buyer is locked in. During the five weeks buyer can
pull out at any time.


If/when I sell a house again I'm gonna unilaterally make the above be my
framework anyway.

It would also help if the set of documents the seller fills in could be
more standardised and available by download. That way a seller can start
working on those the minute you think about putting the house on the
market.

What I've found when selling houses is that the buyer makes an offer and on
acceptance requests that I take it off the market, yet they continue to look
and sometimes on finding a 'better deal', I get dumped. Does the above
allow me to take the buyer off the market, i.e., stop looking?

mark

On 20/05/10 13:12, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

EU never required the EPC. It merely required governments to gather
some overall statistics on the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
This could be based on the sampled surveys local authorities have to
do anyway. However, it was converted into gold plated ******** in this
country, as is very often the case.


That is interesting... So I wonder why Cameron didn't scrap the EA and
make a clean deal of it?

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"mark" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

Buying/selling in the US was made much easier for me by the fact that
the (binding) contract is signed at the beginning of the process
(therefore no gazumping possible).

In the UK you don't reach that point until much later in the process
(and often not until completion day).

In our case we were (in our view) screwed by the buyers who waited until
late in the process and then sprang some demands based on the survey
(and they had the information much earlier in the process). So I would
say how about a strict timetable:

1) initial agreement and price settled subject to survey, but seller
prevented from accepting another offer (prevents gazumping)

2) buyer then has three weeks to get survey done and notify seller of
any defects he wants remedied or price reduced because of.

3) after three weeks no price alterations or defect considerations
possible, but another two weeks allowed for confirming any title
questions and questions related to environmental issues

4) After five weeks, then, or earlier by agreement, *automatic* exchange
of contracts and buyer is locked in. During the five weeks buyer can
pull out at any time.


If/when I sell a house again I'm gonna unilaterally make the above be my
framework anyway.

It would also help if the set of documents the seller fills in could be
more standardised and available by download. That way a seller can start
working on those the minute you think about putting the house on the
market.
What I've found when selling houses is that the buyer makes an offer and on
acceptance requests that I take it off the market, yet they continue to look
and sometimes on finding a 'better deal', I get dumped. Does the above
allow me to take the buyer off the market, i.e., stop looking?

Good question. The above as I've written it commits the seller but not
the buyer, at the initial stage. In the US you haggle for a day or two
once it looks like you're both serious, but then you sign and exchange
at that point. I can't remember, though, whether or not people do the
survey before or after this. The contract can still say "subject to
survey" and "subject to the buyer getting a mortgage", but the point is
that once you've signed, the buyer has limited room to get-out, and the
seller has none. I mean, you can break the contract but there are
penalties (like, 10% of the contract price or whatever).

So right at the start you've eliminated the major defects we suffer from
here.

well it doesnt eliminate the worst one we had selling the mothers house:
Namely 6 weeks of delay prior to a deal being struck at a price while
layers haggled over this or that bit of paper work, and the buyer used
every one as an excuse to negotiate the price down.

AFTER it had been taken off the market. Fortunately, in a rising market
as it was, there was pressure on him to get on with it.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:54 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
On 20/05/10 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:
HIPs are dead ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

Good - one bit of pointless crap shoved in the bin. Several thousand
more to go...

Pity Cameron hasn't grown enough balls yet to tell the EU to stuff the
Energy Assessment up Von Rompui's backend....


Cameron has the balls, but they are firmly gripped by Clegg. ;-)

On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the search
requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller I found an
good thing. The energy survey was always at most a finger in the air waving
thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were some
positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more for making the
same searches.


The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.

What was potentially the best aspect of the HIP was deleted before
they became law. That was the requirement for a condition survey of
the property. Without that, the HIP was basically useless.

Of course, as with any "new" Labour idea, there was no attention to
detail. The fact that HIP "surveyors" were not required to have any
prior relevant education, experience or proper training meant that
nothing contained in an HIP was in any way credible.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:05:38 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
On 20/05/10 13:12, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

EU never required the EPC. It merely required governments to gather
some overall statistics on the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
This could be based on the sampled surveys local authorities have to
do anyway. However, it was converted into gold plated ******** in this
country, as is very often the case.


That is interesting... So I wonder why Cameron didn't scrap the EA and
make a clean deal of it?


Because there is already a fuss about how many HIP "inspectors" will
be put on the dole?

On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:06:21 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Yes it does. Because the haggling is done at the start (over a day or
so) and then you exchange contracts. Price fixed, end of story.


I could never understand why England and Wales didn't adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel.

I have been involved in many sales and purchases of property in
England and Wales and seen just about every possible pitfall and
obstacle. The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

No gazumping. No post-offer "negotiation". No "subject to survey".

The highest bid gets the property, and that's it. Job done.

Bruce wrote:
The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

That would be the first objection. Why should every buyer pay for a
survey - that may be a full structural survey - if they don't even know
that their offer will be accepted?

On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:13:23 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Good question. The above as I've written it commits the seller but not
the buyer, at the initial stage. In the US you haggle for a day or two
once it looks like you're both serious, but then you sign and exchange
at that point. I can't remember, though, whether or not people do the
survey before or after this. The contract can still say "subject to
survey" and "subject to the buyer getting a mortgage", but the point is
that once you've signed, the buyer has limited room to get-out, and the
seller has none. I mean, you can break the contract but there are
penalties (like, 10% of the contract price or whatever).

I think that's basically the way we did it (as buyers of a house in the
US) - we put a subject to survey clause in the deal, and also a few other
odds and sods (things like making the seller pull out the knackered wood-
burning furnace, because nowhere would insure it with it in place, making
sure the water from the well was of good quality etc.).

On the buyer's side, they basically gave us 48 hours from accepting the
counter-offer that we'd given them for us to get all the necessary
paperwork in place (i.e. the two days of haggling you mention).

I think the whole process took a couple of months from first seeing the
place to actually moving in, but it's normally much faster on this side
of the Pond - we were hampered by the fact that there were several joint-
owners of the property, spread all over the country, and it could take
them a while to agree on anything.

(I always rented in the UK and never bought, so I can't really say how
good or bad the US system is in comparison)

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:58:00 +0100, Andrew May
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

That would be the first objection. Why should every buyer pay for a
survey - that may be a full structural survey - if they don't even know
that their offer will be accepted?


It does seem to stop bidders who aren't serious. I think that's more
of an advantage than a disadvantage, to be honest, as it dramatically
cuts the number of time wasters.

I should have mentioned that the bidder also has to have a
pre-arranged mortgage.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:05:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:06:21 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Yes it does. Because the haggling is done at the start (over a day or
so) and then you exchange contracts. Price fixed, end of story.


I could never understand why England and Wales didn't adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel.

I have been involved in many sales and purchases of property in
England and Wales and seen just about every possible pitfall and
obstacle. The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

No gazumping. No post-offer "negotiation". No "subject to survey".

The highest bid gets the property, and that's it. Job done.

I assume there's a deadline to get offers in? How does that work if a
house is on the market for months? Or does a timer get started when the
first bid arrives?


There's an end date, but if no offers are received, it can be extended
as many times as needed.

Does the seller have to accept any bid? Otherwise if there's a house
that's been on the market for months, what's to stop me putting in a bid
for tuppence-ha'penny? Or is there a reserve price?


I think they ask for offers over a certain amount. So not a reserve
as such, because that would be kept private, but I think a minimum bid
is asked for up-front.

I should point out that I don't have any personal experience of buying
or selling property in Scotland. I have several friends who have, and
my limited knowledge of the system is gleaned from them, also a lawyer
friend who bought several properties in Scotland and is always singing
the praises of the Scottish system.

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
HIPs are dead ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10130254.stm
But the energy certifcate is being kept.
So the energy assessors will not all lose their jobs. I'm of mixed
opinion, since I have a friend who has a business based on energy
surveys.
Simon.

Don't know about the HI bit, but Part P should be kicked into touch as well!

Phil

mark wrote:

Does the above
allow me to take the buyer off the market, i.e., stop looking?

You mean poke their eyes out?

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim Streater wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

SteveW

On 20/05/2010 18:33, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

I'm sure insurance could be provided to cover such problems.

The punishment you're talking about applies to both sides - a seller
could have a lot invested based on the sale of that house.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the
search requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller
I found an good thing. The energy survey was always at most a
finger in the air waving thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were
some positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more
for making the same searches.


The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.


When I purchased my current place, my solicitor did not repeat the searches
already included in the HIP.

What was potentially the best aspect of the HIP was deleted before
they became law. That was the requirement for a condition survey of
the property. Without that, the HIP was basically useless.

Of course, as with any "new" Labour idea, there was no attention to
detail. The fact that HIP "surveyors" were not required to have any
prior relevant education, experience or proper training meant that
nothing contained in an HIP was in any way credible.

Some training was given, and since it is basically a tick list they have to
follow, it is fairly difficult for a HIP surveyor to go badly wrong.

Fredxx wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the
search requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller
I found an good thing. The energy survey was always at most a
finger in the air waving thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were
some positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more
for making the same searches.


The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.


When I purchased my current place, my solicitor did not repeat the
searches already included in the HIP.

Surely he should have done? The day after the searches were done for the HIP
could have been the day the council put in plans for a new road that would
go right through your garden. A HIP is like a car's MOT - only really valid
at the time of testing.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:34:31 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:
Bruce wrote:
What was potentially the best aspect of the HIP was deleted before
they became law. That was the requirement for a condition survey of
the property. Without that, the HIP was basically useless.

Of course, as with any "new" Labour idea, there was no attention to
detail. The fact that HIP "surveyors" were not required to have any
prior relevant education, experience or proper training meant that
nothing contained in an HIP was in any way credible.

Some training was given, and since it is basically a tick list they have to
follow, it is fairly difficult for a HIP surveyor to go badly wrong.


If it is that easy, it can only be worthless. I have dealt personally
with three HIPS. The authors were a former hairdresser, a former taxi
driver and a former local government clerk. Only the latter could
spell and write intelligible English. All three knew less than
nothing about what they were doing. But they could tick the boxes.

HIPs were so "New" Labour. They had the appearance of doing something
useful but the reality was that they were totally meaningless.

Ticking boxes brought us the NHS hospital trust in Stafford which was
held up as a shining example of NHS management because it met all its
targets. Yet 110 people were shown to have died there unnecessarily
(and several hundred more deaths are strongly suspected) because of
gross negligence when it came to caring for patients. Obviously,
there wasn't a box to tick for that!

Ticking boxes also brought us the social services department in
Haringey where a Director with no relevant experiences in social
services but an innate ability for box-ticking (in education) was
brought in. She received high praise for meeting government targets
but was dismissed after multiple failings were shown in the case of
"Baby P". No box to tick for something so fundamental? That's very
New Labour!

What is particularly worrying about this case is that this Director
was just one of a great many non-specialists in social work who were
recruited as Directors of social services departments around the
country after Labour's changes in 2004. God only knows what New
Labour thought they were doing.

And so it is with HIPs.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the search
requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller I found an
good thing. The energy survey was always at most a finger in the air
waving
thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were some
positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more for making
the
same searches.


The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.

Why?

I would take a very dim view of the sol redoing (and charging me for) the
"water" search again. This information is not going to change in a few
months and in most cases is pretty incidental to my decision to purchase

tim

"John" wrote in message
...
Fredxx wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the
search requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller
I found an good thing. The energy survey was always at most a
finger in the air waving thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were
some positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more
for making the same searches.


The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.


When I purchased my current place, my solicitor did not repeat the
searches already included in the HIP.

Surely he should have done? The day after the searches were done for the
HIP could have been the day the council put in plans for a new road that
would go right through your garden.

And if they make this change the day after?

These things are planned years in advance and aren't going to change from
day to day

tim

On 20 May, 13:21, stuart noble wrote:
So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My thoughts exactly. No doubt the next government will reinstate the
baby plus some extra bathwater. And so we go on

I agree, I think people have short memories. When the cries for reform
start up again, as they will, the government will take the HIP scheme,
dust it off, rename it and launch it as their own.

On 20 May 2010 19:33:39 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim Streater wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

That's what insurance is for. What do I care that someone I've made
a contract with in good faith now wants to withdraw for reasons that
are nothing to do with me?

You'd probably find it hard to get cover for loss of income that would kick
in at any less than three months from you taking it out!

SteveW

On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:38:25 +0100, Clive George wrote:

On 20/05/2010 18:33, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

I'm sure insurance could be provided to cover such problems.

The punishment you're talking about applies to both sides - a seller
could have a lot invested based on the sale of that house.

Not typically 10% of the selling price. That someone who's just been made
redundant could quite possibly only afford by losing their existing home.

The most anyone should be expected to pay is lost legal fees.

SteveW

tim.... wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
Fredxx wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx"
wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the
search requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one
seller I found an good thing. The energy survey was always at
most a finger in the air waving thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were
some positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more
for making the same searches.


The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.


When I purchased my current place, my solicitor did not repeat the
searches already included in the HIP.

Surely he should have done? The day after the searches were done for
the HIP could have been the day the council put in plans for a new
road that would go right through your garden.

And if they make this change the day after?

These things are planned years in advance and aren't going to change
from day to day

Don't have to change from day to day. Houses can be on the market for months
so it's quite plausible that something could change after the HIP was
compiled.

On 5/20/2010 4:49 PM, Bruce wrote:

I could never understand why England and Wales didn't adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel.

I have been involved in many sales and purchases of property in
England and Wales and seen just about every possible pitfall and
obstacle. The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

No gazumping. No post-offer "negotiation". No "subject to survey".
The highest bid gets the property, and that's it. Job done.

A number of years ago I bid on a house in Scotland, subject to
satisfactory survey. The survey threw up a number of problems, and the
offer to buy was withdrawn.