NP Rank:
My Constituents Need A Home Information Pack Holiday, Says MP
12 August 2008
As damaging uncertainty continues over whether or not the Government will introduce a stamp duty suspension or deferment scheme, Rob Wilson MP today called on Gordon Brown to use Government powers to suspend Home Information Packs (HIPs) to help boost the beleaguered housing market in his Reading East constituency.
Twelve months on from their introduction, there is growing evidence that HIPs deter speculative sellers, increase transaction costs, discourage sellers from changing estate agent and reduce the number of housing transactions – all exacerbating the economic downturn.
Rob said, “I believe that urgent action is needed to kick start the housing market. People across my constituency, from Woodley and Earley to Caversham and the Town Centre are struggling. Meanwhile the Labour Government is dithering – and their spin and speculation over stamp duty is further undermining the market by making potential buyers wait and see.
“Before Home Information Packs were introduced, Labour Ministers ignored warnings from experts and industry that this new red tape would harm the housing market and the economy. These warnings are coming true, but Ministers are more interested in saving face than saving homebuyers money.
“If the Prime Minister genuinely wants to help my constituents, he would use his powers to suspend Home Information Packs straight away. A future Conservative Government will scrap this unnecessary red tape completely, but a suspension now will deliver those benefits sooner rather than later.”
· Ministers have powers to introduce a HIPs holiday now: When the Government pushed the Home Information Pack laws through Parliament in 2004, it slipped in a last minute concession to allow a Government to suspend any or all of the HIP laws. Parliament does not need to be sitting for such a power to be used.
· Five ways HIPs are harming the housing market: HIPs are undermining an already unstable market:
1) HIPs discourage speculative sellers from putting their homes on the market and act as a barrier to entry; this restricts housing supply and so reduces the number of net housing transactions.
2) By duplicating the need for searches and not providing reliable information, HIPs increase transaction costs, increasing the net cost of moving home.
3) HIPs reduce market responsiveness, by discouraging people from changing estate agent if their house does not sell – as they may be asked to buy a new HIP.
4) The searches in HIPs go ‘stale’ if a house is left unsold for too long, increasing transaction costs in a slow market, and acting as a further deterrent to would-be sellers.
5) If the seller has opted for a so-called ‘free HIP’ – a deferred payment option – they will be hit with a fee if they want to change estate agent, on top of the cost of any new HIP with their new agent.
· Government ignored warnings of harm to economy: Research by independent experts, Oxford Economic Forecasting, warned back in 2006 that HIPs would deter sellers and curtail the number of housing transactions by between 10% - 25%. In turn, this would cut consumer spending, reduce labour mobility and increase the medium term level of unemployment. Ministers ignored these warnings.
· Suspension of HIPs would still allow for EPCs: The Government claims that HIPs are necessary to meet an EU Directive which requires Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs). Yet in Northern Ireland since the start of July 2008, such Certificates have quietly been introduced for home sales without HIPs. Whitehall’s own Better Regulation Commission has slammed the UK Government for “gold plating” the EU Directive on EPCs, and imposing “additional administrative burdens [of HIPs] without adequate justification”.



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 06:28 on August 14th, 2008
My response to Mr Wilson's "five ways HIPs are harming the housing market" is:
1) HIPs discourage speculative sellers from putting their homes on the market and act as a barrier to entry; this restricts housing supply and so reduces the number of net housing transactions.
If a speculative seller is discouraged from marketing becuase of the cost of a statutorily compliant HIP, now often about £250, then they would not seem to be very serious about selling. Such speculation often disrupts chains of sales and can cause more problems when a seller decides after all they were just testing the water. If such people are discouraged from selling by a commitment to £250 or so then the market is frankly better off without them. If HIPs achieve a change in mindset about making up your mind whether or not you really want to sell, that must be a benefit.
2) By duplicating the need for searches and not providing reliable information, HIPs increase transaction costs, increasing the net cost of moving home.
HIPs need to be improved, not scrapped. The implementation has been appalling but the basic concept is sound & common sense. If the standard required searches were provided through NLIS or directly from the relevant authority, at a cost which included a free & instant electronic "refresh" just before exchange of contracts, the problem of longevity and duplication would disappear.
3) HIPs reduce market responsiveness, by discouraging people from changing estate agent if their house does not sell – as they may be asked to buy a new HIP.
There are many HIP solutions that do not tie the seller to an agent and if a seller chooses one that does so tie them, they are not being properly advised or acting sensibly. Education of the public that a HIP should be totally tranferrable between agents is what is needed. Abuse of the HIP system does not justify its vilification; if necessary the rules need tightening up in this respect.
4) The searches in HIPs go ‘stale’ if a house is left unsold for too long, increasing transaction costs in a slow market, and acting as a further deterrent to would-be sellers.
As at 2 above, this could be resolved if local authorities were required to complete the electronic processing of search requests and if NLIS was required to make their search charges lower, not higher, than direct requests. But councils are strapped for cash as it is & have other priorities. So in the meantime, the law should be amended for a (probably long) transitional period to allow a search not to be a required document, or to be required before exchange of contracts, rather than the current 28 days after marketing starts. Once the systems are working properly, they could revert to being required at the outset. The same could apply to a Home Condition Report and environmental searches.
5) If the seller has opted for a so-called ‘free HIP’ – a deferred payment option – they will be hit with a fee if they want to change estate agent, on top of the cost of any new HIP with their new agent.
This is virtually the same argument as at 3 above. There are lots of different solutions. Many solicitors will prepare a HIP at no up front charge (other than the disbursements) if they get the eventual conveyancing work; they charge around £100 if they don't.
Surely the Tories would not seek to return to the archaic & ludicrously inefficient method of waiting until a buyer has been found to start the information-gathering process that causes so much hassle, heartache, wasted money, delay and chain failures? And first time buyers really should benefit from HIPs if they were fully implemented - survey, searches, legal information, all for free.
at 07:53 on September 29th, 2008
Just thought I'd add:
Another negative aspect of HIP's which Rob hasn't mentioned.... I deferred payment of my HIP until 15th November 2008 and have been putting money aside in order to make sure I can pay this on time whether I sell my house by then or not. However, my estate agent has just gone into administration and as my house has gone off the market (even though I am seeking a new agent) they are demanding my HIP payment within 7 days without any flexibility.
I have already lost money as I had (stupidly) paid my estate agent up front as this was the budget option.
Yet again, another example of finacially punishing the poorest people in our community!