Broken HIPs?

Is it “Good Riddance” to Bad Legislation?

The new coalition government announced the suspension of Home Information Packs (HIP) from the 21^st May onwards, saving any seller who markets their property after this date the estimated extra cost (£300-£450) for a HIP.

The idea behind the move is to encourage more sellers to market their properties with ease.  But could this really help inject life into the already slumping property market and what effect will it have on conveyancing?

From June 2007 it was a legal requirement to have a Home Information Pack in order to market a property. Sellers were being billed for yet another expense in the sale process of a property.

It was also in that year that a reported 7000 people were trained to assess HIPs (BBC Statistics 2007). These prospective assessors left their existing jobs to train and in what was promised to be a lucrative role as a HIP assessor earning in the region of £25,000 a year. With the compulsory need for the Home Information Packs there grew a demand for HIP publishers who would then in turn compile all this information into presentable packs on behalf of estate agents.

There can only be negative effect for these people as a result of this suspension. HIP assessors would need to revaluate their job prospects and publishing companies are likely to lose out on a lot of orders from estate agents.

So what is the big fuss about Home Information Packs?

A HIP contains key information for example for a freehold property it would contain property information questionnaires, energy performance certificate (Just like buying a fridge), sale statements, evidence of title and standard searches. They could also include recent planning permission or building consents. For a leasehold property a copy of the lease will also be included.

Once all this information had been collected it would be compiled together by the estate agents or other publishing source into a hard copy pack. These packs would then be passed onto to any prospective buyer. 

The official information in the packs was complied to help aid a quick transaction – avoiding the unnecessary delays a solicitor would face in obtaining the necessary documents and also to give all buyers the opportunity to know exactly what their purchase would entitle from the offset.

Well, that’s the “theory” at least…

In practise Estate Agents hated having to charge clients up front. Lawyers complained that since the vast majority of sellers were also buying when they moved, all that a HIP accomplished in practical terms was to “move” the process of paying for searches etc. up the chain one notch. So, sellers provided the information for their buyers and then, when they came to buy themselves, they didn’t have to commission the searches on the property they were buying.

It seemed to many like a lot of fuss and hot air over very little in reality.

One other practical issue, however, was always whether banks and mortgage companies would accept third party searches and documentation. They would always prefer fresh information from their own solicitors, naturally, and in fact in many cases our firm has had to explain to disgruntled buyers that they would have to pay for new versions of certain documents anyway!

So, what is the “prognosis” now the new collation government has suspended these packs?

Some estate agents report improvements in the market since the announcement, but in reality the property market is still dragging along slowly – and it will continue, in my opinion, until normal lending conditions resume. One unwelcome side-effect the suspension has had is the doubled pricing of Energy Performance Certificate.

Questions remain according to solicitors in Sutton Coldfield…

Will the move really encourage more sellers to market their home? Will it actually help the property market flourish again? Are Nick and “Dave” really one and the same person?

We will just have to wait and see…  

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

“How Will The New Government Control Vicious Dogs?” asks Solicitor in Sutton Coldfield

Solicitors in Sutton Coldfield say “The press seems to always be reporting vicious dog attacks here in the UK.”

Five year old Ellie Lawrenson died after being mauled by Pit Bull Terrier in 2007. She was reported to have serve head and neck injuries. Again in 2009 four year old John Massey suffered fatal injuries to his face, neck and body. In Merseyside alone hospitals treat at least 30 people a week as a result of dog attacks.

Inner city gangs and drug dealers are known to use dangerous dogs as offensive weapons and status symbols. Essentially it would be like having a loaded shotgun pointed at your front door.

What’s to be done?

The Government has already ruled out the plan for compulsory insurance for all dogs after the plan was found to be unfair on the majority of law abiding dog owners. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is often criticised for being too vague. 

Well, the Control of Dogs Bill 2009-2010 bill may prove to be better at providing an equitable solution to the problem. The private members bill is currently at the first reading. The bill will enforce dog owners to micro chip their pets; and more importantly give more powers to the courts and authorities to deal with vicious dogs, careless dog owners and stray dogs.

With more powers and authority given to the police, courts and local authorities maybe we will begin to hear less about those gut wrenching attacks, although it remains to be seen how the new Government might choose to deal with this…

Here’s hoping…

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Is File-Sharing Like shoplifting?

Security has always been a problem!

Hadrian’s Wall was built in AD 122 by order of Emperor Hadrian to “separate Romans from Barbarians” in the interests of security.

In modern times, retail empires like Tesco or Marks and Spencer have security guards and electronic sensors at work to provide the same physical barrier to the unwanted “liberation” of items from their stores.

But what happens when the items are stored in the ether of the internet? Can you really prevent the “hordes at their keyboards” from ghosting into the shadowy corners of the virtual realm? Is it really feasible to devise a system that makes sure that “five finger discount” is impossible to apply online?

Well the Government certainly thinks they have the answer, and a new piece of legislation aims to separate out the “Barbarian Hordes” who indulge in file-sharing!

On the 8^th April 2010 the controversial Digital Economy Bill was passed at the third reading in the House of Commons.

Its aim is to tackle and thwart copyright infringements and the bill is seen as a tool “with teeth” in the “war against piracy”.

For years record labels and film studios have been complaining that they are suffering huge losses due to the rise in illegal file sharing.

“After all,” they say, “why pay for something when you can get it free?”

Whether you’re looking for your favourite blockbuster movie or your favourite album, you can now use a multitude of so-called “shareware” websites which offer exactly that enticing prospect. With super-fast broadband you can now download films and albums, legally or illegally, in less than the time it would take you to make a cup of tea!

So what’s the solution for the copyright holder?

The legislation tries to shift the onus onto computer users and businesses to build a “Hadrian’s Wall” around their networks and hard drives to fortify security. Otherwise they risk prosecution and suspension of their internet connection.

The impact could be dramatic. Imagine, for instance, how any modern day business would struggle to cope without the internet. If you’ve ever even experienced a power cut when at work you’ll know that without the internet most businesses are simply paralysed.

A pertinent question here might be “Is it fair if a company goes to the wall and people are made redundant because somebody in the business has downloaded Now That’s What I Call Music 365?”

Under the bill Internet Service Providers have also been tasked to reduce online copyright infringements. Given the popularity of the World Wide Web this is no simple task.

For example, a moderately successful musician who earns an annual online income of, say, £14,000 would highly appreciate this bill as piracy could cause him substantial losses. Others would counter that it is a pile-driver to crack a nut…

A report by the BBC on the 17^th March claimed the growth of illegal file-sharing could cost European countries 1.2 million jobs and £215bn by the year 2015. The UK alone could lose 250,000 jobs by 2015, it is said. With figures like these being bandied about it’s not hard to see why extra measures were drafted up to curb piracy.

Although in the final stages of amendments the Digital Economy Bill promises to please copyright holders once gave the Royal Assent.  It gives any copyright holder the ability to fight back against those offenders who illegally download material.

Essentially they’re saying that illegal file sharing would be the equivalent to walking into your local Tesco’s, picking up a DVD, walking past the cashier whilst smiling, making no attempt to pay, and exiting the store. But they’re proposing to give out much more stringent penalties than a ticking off or a small fine…

All of this begs a few “real world” questions, such as “Is stance this really justified?”

And perhaps more importantly “When such huge numbers share files on the internet is criminalisation really a practical solution?”

Lastly, given the importance of such a Bill and the potential impact, “Is this really the best, most imaginative, solution we could come up with?“

It might well be said that the situation is a larger scale version of the pleas from record companies in the 1980s that “Home Taping Is Killing Music!”

Plaintively imploring fans not to record from LP records and CDs onto cassette didn’t work then…

We’ll have to wait and see what happens this time around!

Interesting times…

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous