Live cracks the PIQ problem

Rob & Michelle: Of course EPC, my error. The fundamental issue is that an individual IS capable of being in breach of the legislation and therefore subject to a penalty notice. According to Trading Standards the only distinction is how and what you say. Telling neighbours that you are moving is apparently fine. But if you say that you are moving and do you know anyone who would like to buy it then you are deemed to be marketing and subject to enforcement action if you do not have a full HIP. If a friend tells a friend and so on the individual is not in control and therefore can not be considered to have been marketing! The friend however might well have been deemed to be engaging in estate agency and may be subject to the legislation! Where does it stop? I doubt that Trading Standards would be confident about an appeal against a fine going to court for judgment without more tangible evidence of marketing. It is this reliance on exactly what was said and how that makes the legislation so shaky and vague. My point is one of principle that the right of freedom to expression allowing an individual to make such a statement in innocence and to whomever without fear of or threat from the state appears to have been unjustifiably revoked just to enforce the HIP and EPC legislation with regard to first day of marketing. I can not think of another possession to which similar restriction is imposed. I also firmly believe that individuals and agents should be free to publicly generate interest in any property they bring to the market prior to availability of the HIP with perhaps viewings and receipt of offers prohibited. Why should a house be different from any other product?

• 14 March 2009 14:37 PM

The Housing Act 2004 says, 'Family members, individuals or small defined groups of people would not be considered a "section of the public." Marketing which is limited to such people will therefore not count as putting the property on the market." No Hip needed Chancer but an EPC, yes.

• 13 March 2009 17:53 PM

Chancer - thank you for your comments I am a fair and trusting person... having said that I'm not stupid and I'm definately not Margaret Beckett! I have a firm belief that this 'word of month' matter will not be an issue for vendors and with all the changes heading our way I honestly think this matter is of miniscule importance. The bottom line is estate agents need to ensure no marketing commences unless a HIP is in place. Now it is possible to put together the required documents in a day... i invisage this being more like 2-3 days but still it is possible within a day, so providing vendors are encouraged by their agents to fill in the PIQ I do not think first day marketing will delay the marketing process significantly.

• 13 March 2009 16:00 PM

Michelle, your innate sense of fairness and trust that our government would not shaft its electorate is truly heartening and admirable amongst such a band of cynics, sceptics and renegades, are you sure you’re not Margaret Beckett? There does not appear to be any provision for granting an individual any immunity within the act or enforcement of, a vendor is therefore capable of being in breach of the legislation. The legislation applies to the sale of the property and the penalty applies to the responsible person. The responsible person can be an agent or the vendor themselves.

Rob, I think that you are wrong. Private sales are not excluded other than where a sale to a friend or relative is made without public marketing and in this situation no HIP or EPC is required – how crazy is that! If the process of mentioning to family and friends is excluded from the definition of marketing then this suggests that all verbal marketing is therefore acceptable else there are no definable end points. This would make the act unenforceable. It is not possible to determine in telling a friend whether the would be vendor is soliciting for buyers or simply being courteous and what if a friend tells a friend? The act has incorporated a catch all marketing definition and has no exemptions that I can see.

The following is an extract from a Housing Act 2004 Delegations document published by a local authority:

“The HA 2004 places a duty on the local weights and measures authority to enforce the provisions of Part 5 of the HA 2004, in relation to HIPs. Should a vendor or an estate agent breach their duty to produce a HIP in the required form, they will be liable to a penalty charge notice, which currently has been set at £200. Should the vendor or estate agent fail to pay the penalty then it can be recovered via civil action”

• 12 March 2009 21:51 PM

Michelle you are correct. Private sales will not be caught by Hip legislation. Mentioning to family and friends will not constitute marketing. I cannot belive the levels paranoia and vitriol out there. I will keep saying it, "we are producing comprehensive Hips that do help speed up and make the transaction less stressful." Not as often as I would like but we need your help!

• 12 March 2009 19:27 PM

Chancer - good points but I don't believe that members of the general public would be subject to a penalty fine from Trading Standards for breach of the conditions of the Housing Act 2004, for not having a HIP in place and telling friends and neighbours. I believe this is aimed more at property professionals, namely estate agents.

• 12 March 2009 16:25 PM

Can't see any mention of the loss of the personal search from April, which will of course, push the price of HIPs up, thats helpful.

• 12 March 2009 15:55 PM

Michelle, your interpretation is the one we would hope to be the case, but as far as I can see the legislation does not expressly make a distinction for someone informing neighbours and friends that their house is going to be available for sale. They have, according to the legislation, let it be known or caused it to be known that the property is or going to be available and therefore deemed to have engaged in marketing and for which there is an implicit threat of a penalty fine. Any distinction is impossible to prove so the risk is there. Who is to say that that they are being courteous or soliciting for buyers? The definition of marketing has been made to capture any occurrence through which it becomes known that the property is or going to be for sale. Would some over zealous officious jobs worth from trading standards be capable of applying common sense? What if he or she is incentivised with targets and bonuses to achieve?

• 12 March 2009 13:28 PM

Be fair Cracked. Since Robs Sendalls departure they are losing market share rapidly, Team the latest I think to jettison them, they need to regurge a marketing message which is just a PR stint.

• 12 March 2009 13:19 PM

Something for nothing? Don’t believe it .Who is going to pay Live for the extra work? That’s a lot of phone calls and extra cost, it can’t just be they have moved to a cheaper northern operation. Watch out for the sting. Could they be paying their hard pushed solicitors even less and if so what happens to service levels?? Cracked the PIQ- no cracked the marketing more like.

• 12 March 2009 13:12 PM

Vendors would not get into trouble for mentioning to neighbours and friends that they are going to sell their house if they haven't yet got a HIP in place. The legislation states that marketing cannot commence until a HIP is in place - that would include marketing by an estate agent or something as simple as putting a 'for sale' sign in their window but does not cover word of mouth to friends and family. That is certainly my interpretation of the legislation.

• 12 March 2009 12:54 PM

Michelle, you are quite right in the context of building coherent and persuasive arguments however I can not embrace their usefulness in any way whatsoever. The legislation was imposed on the industry under false and misleading pretences and does not address the fundamental problems it claimed to resolve. The objective of improving the house buying process was hijacked to create a vehicle for the EPC. It is this that explains much of the anger and hostility. An admission from government that it behaved badly together with a downgrading of the mandatory status to being voluntary until a more viable and effective solution is implemented would go a long way to encouraging a more constructive attitude.


Agents always could and some did pre-assemble much of the content of the HIP in readiness for the conveyance. Solicitors would also pre-compile information, providing they had disbursement authority. Searches were the biggest single delay in conveyance and particularly nauseating is that the 3 day search only became possible to make HIPs viable. Why were the improvements not introduced years ago? Even now the 28 day allowance for searches in HIPs makes a mockery of and discredits the stated objectives of HIPs and is an admission that the HIP is simply an expensive file for the EPC and which itself is of suspect value.


Despite the wealth of propaganda the overwhelming opinion from solicitors and the conveyance profession is universally damming and that “caveat emptor” remains dominant which renders virtually all seller side produced documentation irrelevant and by default unreliable in order for the buyers solicitor to exercise due diligence.


Take a look again at HIPs legislation. Do you really think it acceptable that with effect from 6th April you risk a penalty fine from Trading Standards for breach of the conditions of the Housing Act 2004 if you are not in prior possession of a full HIP (minus searches) and, out of courtesy and innocence, mention to neighbours and friends that you are going to sell your house? Have you told your vendors that their right to a fundamental freedom of expression has been revoked and that you fully support it? Have you informed your vendors and clients that this legislation has now given Trading Standards authority to interfere with individuals right of possession where previously it had none? There is not a single benefit of HIPs that justifies this level of state intrusion and control. If you are not incensed then perhaps you should be.

• 12 March 2009 11:37 AM

Michelle Stephenson: Judging by your comments below, it seems you are the one that lives in Toy Town. It is exactly this dreamy and naiive idealism that brought HIPs into life in the first place.

• 12 March 2009 10:53 AM

With 7 out of 8 properties coming onto the market not selling, all this information gathering is a complete waste of time and money. The only people backing hIPS and the new legislation are those with vested financial/political interest. NuLabour have made the fatal mistake of 'power' politics and have forgotten that they are are there to serve us. This should have been shelved ages ago when it was it was rejected by the House Of Commons. It should be no surprise therefore that some of us who have been financially impacted by this patronising government decide to fight back.

• 12 March 2009 10:50 AM

"fly blown festering excrement"..."gangstas" -please grow up. Whether you are a supporter of HIPs in their entirety or not you cannot deny that at very least certain elements are useful. The way forward is not to use ridiculous language to rubbish HIPs but to embrace their usefulness and work towards making them more useful be it in their current format or otherwise.

• 12 March 2009 09:44 AM

It beggars belief that there are people out there still defending HIPS. It is the biggest pile of fly blown festering excrement that any government has ever put forward. Do you pro-HIP gangstas think we are idiots? Give it up.

• 12 March 2009 00:21 AM

Radical reforms? Don't make me laugh. The government introduce an easy to assemble Pack with caveats to ensure marketing is not held up and you complain about that. I don't really think you should be the one suggesting radical reforms -it's not really you is it Nick!

• 11 March 2009 23:22 PM

Selective quoting of my views I'm afraid Ed. I have always supported 'timely and relevant' information being made available to buyers. What we have now is neither timely nor relevant. If we are to improve the home buying process a far more radical and wide ranging set of reforms coupled with full use of technology are required. And please don't tell us that HIPs is the start. It isn't.

• 11 March 2009 20:31 PM

Why is it that the likes of Nick Salmon continue to work against all the good things that he himself agreed with. - i.e. providing up front info. Surely, the more the better? Loads of sales fall down due to misunderstandings and wrong assumptions being made. Getting the facts out there at an early stage has always had most people's support - unfortunately when this is made compulsory to ensure it happens, some think this is a step too far. Who would vote for a voluntary MOT though?

Once the PIQ is in place the next step should be to introduce a mandatory Condition Report including the EPC. Of course, as the EPC is already being done, the extra cost of this will be far less tahn a "stand-alone" inspection and report.

Full HIPs from CLG PDQ please!

• 11 March 2009 20:26 PM

Nick, you know where we (Hipag) get lawyers and agents working "together" we produce a more comprehensive Hip and that helps to speed up and make the transaction less stressful. We just need more property professionals to work "together" for the benefit of all concerned, including the public.

• 11 March 2009 19:05 PM

A PDQ and a PIQ in an HIP with an EPC from the EU via the CLG will make sales go ASAP? Or perhaps do sweet FA?

• 11 March 2009 18:07 PM

This is not estate agency work, its conveyancing work. I don't think many customers would be happy paying me for both services.

• 11 March 2009 18:01 PM

I would suggest that any agent concerned with good customer service would find the time to guide their elderly or incapactitated clients through the form. Lets face it if you want the commission you have to do the job and do it properly!

• 11 March 2009 17:59 PM

The PIQ has been designed to benefit the purchaser not his solicitor. A new Property Detail Questionnaire (PDQ) for use by lawyers has been compiled to 'dove tail' in with PIQ by the AHIPP legal working group. The PDQ is already in use in some areas and has been complimented by many conveyancers.

• 11 March 2009 17:57 PM

The information will be required during conveyance but with greater clarity as to its provenance and verification. The seller only has to answer to the extent of their knowledge, memory or understanding of the question. This is by no means sufficient to indemnify the buyer’s solicitor from exercising proper due diligence on behalf of the purchaser and lender. The PIQ itself effectively confesses this where it warns the seller that “misleading or incorrect answers are likely to be exposed later in the conveyance process” This consigns the PIQ to being of little value other than extra information for the benefit of purchasers and would therefore be better as an additional sheet to the details. I am sure that HIP providers must consider excluding the PIQ from any warranty as to the information within the HIP. Much of it simply duplicates information provided by other mandatory elements of the HIP that use official or verified documentation thus creating scope for unqualified differentiation. I struggle to see any point with it and wonder whether it has more to do with a cynical attempt to bolster the pretence that the HIP availability has some relevance at point of first day marketing.

• 11 March 2009 15:47 PM

Common Sense has led to our country being ruled by dictators & the break-up of democracy. All organisations representing the property market voted against hIPS as well as the House of Commons and the House OF Lords only for one or two individuals in the cabinet to stick two fingers up and go ahead anyway. Encouraging vendors to say 'dont know' is an act of defiance against the machine which is bit by bit crushing our hard fought liberties. How many agents can afford to spend additional man hours 'guiding' their elderly, incapactitated vendors into filling these forms. This is more burdensome regulation which will cost the industry which is already on its knees £tens of thousands administering. Common Sense never comes into anything this control-freak government does. As the saying goes 'Treat us like children and we will behave like children'.

• 11 March 2009 15:16 PM

Encouraging your vendors to answer 'don't know' is going to do nothing than more than cause them additional cost. The information required in the PIQ will be required at later stages of the buying and selling process anyway - what difference does it make whether it is at the beginning of the process or later? And of course guidance through the PIQ is acceptable, i'm sure no one is suggesting an elderly or incapable person should be left in the dark - the point is the agent cannot sit down and fill the form in themselves. Surely common sense should come in to play with regards to all this.

• 11 March 2009 14:46 PM

I'm with you Wolfie

• 11 March 2009 14:28 PM

In protest, all my vendors will answer don't know as the splintacampaign suggests. I'm not letting more of this beaureaucratic nonsense disrupt my business. New labour can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Power to the people.

• 11 March 2009 12:02 PM

Nice idea but this is immediately suggesting a minimum 3 day tolerance on the production of the HIP and in reality 5 to 7 days before it is turned around. This is exactly the problem many agents have been indicating even now without the PIQ. Live Organisation’s initiative is certainly proactive but why wait 3 days? Why not contact the vendor immediately on instruction and talk them through it on the phone?
There is no declaration as to who has completed the form and in what capacity and provided the answers are those of the vendor there is no problem. The legislation does not and can not impose any restriction as to who actually ticks the boxes and by not requiring a signature of any description surely the form is effectively rendered inadmissible for any purpose and without liability and can not therefore be relied on. It is therefore worthless.

I presume that the government was persuaded not to require a vendor’s signature on the basis of self-incrimination and that it would be putting a document (full HIP) in to the public domain with the vendors name, address and signature on.

Agents should not abdicate their responsibility to help vendors just because of this ridiculous situation. I would urge however that a disclaimer is added to the form along the lines of: “Whilst the form has been completed in good faith neither the agent, vendor or HIP provider accept or acknowledge liability for any inaccuracies contained within or where subsequent events cause the information to become inaccurate and can not therefore be relied on. Interested parties are advised to seek their own confirmation of any specific areas of concern or importance”

• 11 March 2009 11:44 AM

Isn't it ludicrous that a HIP provider can help a vendor complete the PIQ and not face any sanction if they cock it up - whilst estate agents aiding a client to complete the form risk a PMA prosecution if they make an innocent mistake? I have discussed this PIQ with lawyers and there is no doubt whatsoever that most purchasers lawyers will require a proper SPIF to be completed by the vendor. The PIQ is yet another layer of wasted time and money.

Anyone up for mass disobedience by telling clients to tick every box as 'Don't Know'?

www.splintacampaign.co.uk

• 11 March 2009 11:43 AM

more shameless promotion on here masquerading as news - I am getting tired of having to filter the news from the adverts - we should not need to do this Rosalind.. you are letting yourself down with this - otherwise the site is really useful.

• 11 March 2009 11:02 AM

How bl**dy stupid. Agents remember when PMA came in and many feared potential prosecution. What is the world coming to. Theres due dilligence. Help with caution, be honest and accurate. To leave an elderly or incapable person to suffer their way through stacks of questions is sheer stupidity. Good agents will have no problem giving professional accurate guidance.

• 11 March 2009 10:27 AM