HIPs Keep Hopping Along?
The Home Information Pack debate is heating up. There was an Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons on 24 May when some MP's very succinctly put the arguments against HIPs. It is well worth a read because it is not very long and covers all the main points:
http://digbig.com/4jbrk
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper) responded for the government making it clear that the government is still relying on a very narrow level of alleged consumer support. Additionally they still use the Danish example in support without at all mentioning the major difference in their housing marker - the seller gives the buyer a 20 year guarantee about the structure of the house and so it is in the interests of the seller to have a report at the point of sale.
Unfortunately, the debate which only lasted for less than 30 minutes, makes it clear that the Treasury has an immense vested interest in pushing the HIP scheme - there is going to be a 175 million GBP annual bonus to the VAT man as a result. Additionally the database created will enable governments to plan tax more efficiently. With that sort of temptation, it is unlikely that the government will allow the scheme to fail despite all its problems and failings.
There are three groups which are an interesting sources of information about HIPs. SPLINTA is against the pack in its present form but in favour of a different more flexible system. Michael Garson, who was so effective as a Law Society Council Member has started a website about HIPs called PerPro the Independent Property Professionals Forum. Hipsco is unique among the HIP providers in sending out news items which criticise HIPs as well as news in favour of them.
SPLINTA:
http://www.splintacampaign.co.uk/
PerPro:
http://www.perpro.org/
Hipsco:
http://www.hipsco.co.uk/
The Law Society has a continuing presence in this debate but I feel it is not as independent as it should be because it is tainted by the financial commitment it has made to becoming the major supplier of the reports:
http://digbig.com/4jbrs
SPLINTA has published research, based on a survey of over 1800 transactions which commenced in February 2006, which shows that the HIP would have a beneficial effect in only 1.4% of cases: http://www.uklawyers.co.uk/cms/catsection/splintapressjun05.html
The argument put forward by the minister amounted to this, and I quote:
"With such a huge asset and when so much information is required before the deal can be completed, why should we use a system that causes inefficiency and protracted delays and that has such huge costs?"
My reply is that with such a huge asset, isn't it better to use a system which encourages caution, rather than providing the poor quality information in the HIPs which will cause people to reach hasty and ill advised decisions?
http://digbig.com/4jbrk
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper) responded for the government making it clear that the government is still relying on a very narrow level of alleged consumer support. Additionally they still use the Danish example in support without at all mentioning the major difference in their housing marker - the seller gives the buyer a 20 year guarantee about the structure of the house and so it is in the interests of the seller to have a report at the point of sale.
Unfortunately, the debate which only lasted for less than 30 minutes, makes it clear that the Treasury has an immense vested interest in pushing the HIP scheme - there is going to be a 175 million GBP annual bonus to the VAT man as a result. Additionally the database created will enable governments to plan tax more efficiently. With that sort of temptation, it is unlikely that the government will allow the scheme to fail despite all its problems and failings.
There are three groups which are an interesting sources of information about HIPs. SPLINTA is against the pack in its present form but in favour of a different more flexible system. Michael Garson, who was so effective as a Law Society Council Member has started a website about HIPs called PerPro the Independent Property Professionals Forum. Hipsco is unique among the HIP providers in sending out news items which criticise HIPs as well as news in favour of them.
SPLINTA:
http://www.splintacampaign.co.uk/
PerPro:
http://www.perpro.org/
Hipsco:
http://www.hipsco.co.uk/
The Law Society has a continuing presence in this debate but I feel it is not as independent as it should be because it is tainted by the financial commitment it has made to becoming the major supplier of the reports:
http://digbig.com/4jbrs
SPLINTA has published research, based on a survey of over 1800 transactions which commenced in February 2006, which shows that the HIP would have a beneficial effect in only 1.4% of cases: http://www.uklawyers.co.uk/cms/catsection/splintapressjun05.html
The argument put forward by the minister amounted to this, and I quote:
"With such a huge asset and when so much information is required before the deal can be completed, why should we use a system that causes inefficiency and protracted delays and that has such huge costs?"
My reply is that with such a huge asset, isn't it better to use a system which encourages caution, rather than providing the poor quality information in the HIPs which will cause people to reach hasty and ill advised decisions?
posted by Steve Butler, UKlawyers | 9:13 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home