Three top London agents – all well-known names with good reputations for ethical practice – have strongly denied breaking the law.
The three were initially identified yesterday by the Association of Home Information Pack Providers as repeatedly listing properties without HIPs.
AHIPP subsequently withdrew the names for legal reasons, but is standing by its overall allegation that agents, particularly in London, are routinely flouting the law on HIPs.
The three companies reacted in disbelief about the accusations after being contacted by Estate Agent Today.
One of them responded: “We are unsure as to what the basis is of this accusation. We strongly request anyone come to our office so we can show them the HIP reports we hold for the properties we are marketing.”
The head of another of the best-known and most successful names in estate agency said: “I’m surprised and amazed to hear that AHIPP consider that there is repeated abuse from [one of our offices] regarding the production of a HIP for all properties we have on the market and I would be interested to hear which properties they believe do not have a HIP.
“I have now spoken to every member of the department in the office, including the office co-ordinator, and not one of them can remember being asked to produce a HIP by a prospective buyer or indeed anyone. Such is the complete apathy from the buying public concerning a HIP. It never happens and we would remember if it did, as it would be a very unusual occurrence
“‘Repeated abuse’ is an extremely strong allegation and I hope that AHIPP have got their facts right or I will be extremely cross.”
The third agent, which is well known not just in London but across the UK, also strongly denied the claims.
A spokesman said: “There is no basis in fact to the accusations by AHIPP. The office mentioned, and indeed all of our offices, have adhered completely to the letter of the Government’s HIP regulations.
“We have asked AHIPP to provide details for their claims which they have been unable to provide. We have requested a full apology and expect this to be issued in due course.”
Yesterday’s claims were made by AHIPP after a mystery shopping exercise, resulting in AHIPP calling on the Office of Fair Trading to crack down on agents flouting the HIP regulations.
In an amended statement yesterday evening, AHIPP said: “In recent weeks there has been a worrying trend in properties being listed without a HIP, particularly in London.”
AHIPP undertook the mystery shopping exercises in the boroughs of Camden, Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea, and says it has reported to Trading Standards over 80 properties which it says have been listed without a HIP.
Mike Ockenden, director general of AHIPP, said: “Failure to comply with the regulations risks a £200 fine from Trading Standards officers for each property involved. AHIPP wants to highlight to agents that Trading Standards provide copies of all fixed penalty notices to the OFT, which in turn has the powers to issue orders to agents to cease trading. AHIPP is now calling on the OFT to take a close interest in those that are openly flouting the law.”
According to AHIPP, Trading Standards are already visiting estate agents in several regions of the country and fixed penalty notices have been issued by four different authorities “with many more to come”.
AHIPP said it will continue to work closely with Trading Standards in local authorities up and down the country. It added that it expects action will follow shortly in the London boroughs where the greatest instances of non-compliance have been reported.
Ockenden added: “This is not about the rights and wrongs of HIPs but about the fact that some agents are trying to attain a perceived competitive advantage over their competitors by listing properties without HIPs.
“It is perverse, even absurd, that law-breakers should be able to get away with this, and that law-abiding responsible agents pay the price with lost listings. As long as HIPs are law, then the playing field should be level for all agents to compete fairly.
“Agents should also note that the seven days available to produce a HIP for a TSO when requested does not mean they can simply then order a Pack. The Pack that has to be produced must have been in place before the property was listed for sale, and a simple check on the date of the documents, such as the official copy from the Land Registry and the EPC, will verify this.”
AHIPP has also set up a special email address for breaches to be reported, and says anonymity is guaranteed. The address is compliance@hipassociation.co.uk
Top agents deny breaking law on HIPs
20 November 2009
Latest Features
-
Q1 at auction: the most active auction market we've seen to date
Auction is gearing up for further growth with a traditional strong...
-
UK housebuilders back in the market for land as outlook brightens
Britain's housebuilders are seeing a recovery in buyer interest and land...
-
What every estate agent needs to know about SEO
In the fast-evolving world of property, where every click counts and...
Sponsored Content
-
Join the future of estate agency, today. ...
Estate agency has changed. No longer is it required to sit in...
-
Prestige & Village announce exciting new partnership with Desert...
In an exclusive interview with Estate Agent Today, Simon Coaker, Sales &...
-
Looking for a client account? Five steps to better...
You don’t have to simply accept things as they are when...
-
Upcoming Stamp Duty Change may spur sales in short term
An expert says a change in Stamp Duty Land Tax, coming...
-
Industry Views - Airbnb Crackdown - this time it's not just Michael Gove...
It’s tempting to think that Michael Gove’s proposed clampdown on Airbnb-style...
-
Stamp Duty Cut possible in Mini-Budget - government briefing
A report in the Times newspaper says Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is...
-
Stamp Duty Revolution - call for sellers to pay instead of buyers
A prominent estate agent has started an online petition to reverse...
-
Agency regulation and enforcement will improve home sales - claim
Estate agency regulation is needed to help improve the homebuying and...
-
Average estate agent fees hit £4,500 to £10,300 - claim
A new analysis of the cost-of-moving suggests that the typical seller...
60 second interview
Jake Gann, Sales Director at Bamboo Auction
Who are you and what does it say on...
Ashley Day - Director of Bristol Property Centre
Who are you, and what does it say on...
Graham Paterson ‘Co-founder and CEO of Jitty’
Who are you and what does it say on your...
Comments
good article as usual!
if AHIPPS are so sure of there claims, how comes they are unwilling now to name not one company from the 80 properties reported ? sounds like they want to have even less business
Nick Salmon says : ‘Unsurprising that some agents will think it is a risk worth running. The frustration of not being able to create sales on the spot out of past valuations is totally understandable’
How irresponsible! Why would a law-abiding agent wish the risk of prosecution just to secure a sale? Why do some estate agents think they are above the law? Why should they get away with it whilst others comply?
The time it takes to order land registry documents, complete the PIQ and deliver an EPC should be no longer than it takes to take photographs, approve sale particulars and erect a ‘For sale’ board.
I am fed up with people like Salmon standing up for agents and putting forward feeble excuses for their shortcomings. The explanatory notes to the regulations suggest an agent can inform a prospective purchaser that a property in a general area is about to come onto the market and if there is a delay of one or two days to identify the exact address thenso be it.
Why should an agent be given dispensation for no reason other than to get their hands on overinflated fees that much sooner? It is about time that we stand up to agents and not allow them to dictate what should or what should not happen in the property market. They do not own it!
Well done AHIPP for having the guts to stand up to the greed of these people.
As regards the life span of the HIP – Mr Salmon please to do not get to excited as the polls suggest that the Conservative’s arrogance of becoming the next Government may prove to be misplaced. Even the well known connection between Mr. Cameron and estate agents may not be enough to save your blushes.
Leave HIPs alone I make £200 every time I put a house on the market, rubbish they may be but I am so bad I need the money!
All this when the EPC will still be required at the start of the process. Not that much will change for the agent except a lower income from commission!
'Ajax' - I am not sure if you are naive or just deliberately obtuse. There is now no possibility that AHIPP can be pursued for defamation/libel because by its complicity, EAT has allowed AHIPP to withdraw the statement (whilst still maintaining that it is true). Does this not strike you in the least suspicious? Does it not further seem suspicious that EAT is the only outlet reporting (or should that be not reporting) AHIPP's claims? When EAT is given stories by Mike Ockenden and then proceeds to quote him in some detail, allows him to change his story and withholds facts to suit him, how can we be expected to believe EAT is independent? You are wrong to suggest that EAT would be guilty of libel by naming the firms concerned. By publishing denials - the other side of the story, they would simply be reporting the facts and would clearly have a 'reasonable reporting' defence. In answer to your question, AHIPP's own website shows no releases since Oct 7th. In response to your rather bizarre statement that I rely on 'The Negotiator' for news, I will only say that I read news from many sources and then make up my own mind. Your incongruous reference to a competitor to EAT rather suggests you have an axe to grind. You don't work for EAT do you?
'Property Insider' - If AHIPP's claims were false and libellous, as may prove to be the case if the three firms take legal action against AHIPP, then Rosalind Renshaw would have been equally guilty of libel if she had published the names. I don't believe she is a mouthpiece for AHIPP, but clearly you know better. This does not appear to me to be a pro-AHIPP story, as most of the posters seem to understand. You don't, but I guess you still rely on The Negotiator for your news. By the way, how do you know AHIPP has not published a press release since October 7th?
Clearly AHIPP have little else to do.
It will be good practice for them.
When EAT states that "The three were initially identified yesterday by the Association of Home Information Pack Providers" it makes me curious. To whom were they identified? Because AHIIPP hasn't issued a press release since October 7th. Could it be that this story was fed to Rosalind Renshaw on a Thursday (strangely the same day when all of her other AHIPP stories break)? When she contacted the 3 firms about which the allegations were made, they obviously told her the story was ****ocks. So instead of running with the full story, exposing AHIPP's false claims, as any self respecting journalist would, she effectively allows AHIPP to make the allegation then hastily withdraw it - "AHIPP then withdrew the names for legal reasons" - so organisations can "withdraw" libellous claims made to journalists now can they? If they had any evidence that the statements they are making were true, then they would have no problem whatsoever with standing by them. Shame on EAT for allowing itself to be nothing more than a very accommodating mouthpiece for AHIPP. And shame on AHIPP for, well, being AHIPP.
S Y M P A T H Y V O T E S .
Please.
The following are extracts from the Guidance Notes for Enforcement Officers: All residential properties put on the market on or after the 6th April 2009 will require a valid "basic" Hip before marketing can start: For homes put on the market from 6th April 2009, are all the relevant documents that are required to be in the pack by the first point of marketing there? The seven day production rule is to allow for the possibility that the documents may not be in the responsible persons possession or the person may be on holiday at the time the request is made.
The moustache should be trimmed in to a style that represents the organisation.
(step 1) shaved at the edges, except for three to five centimetres above the centre of the lip.
(step 2) the sides of the moustache should be vertical rather than tapered.
And voila - The Toothbrush moustache
AHIPP ze nu police of ze TSO.
So its okay to break the law if you're 'frustrated'. Anarchy reigns! Sorry, but those who break the law deserve whatever they get.
To clarify my reported comments... I was not suggesting that the seven day grace period to produce a HIP to a TSO could be used to avoid prosecution if you had not got a HIP at first point of marketing. My comment was to highlight why so many agents have flouted the regs (some regularly, others now and then) - because the chances of a TSO coming knocking is remote. Unsurprising that some agents will think it is a risk worth running.The frustration of not being able to create sales on the spot out of past valuations is totally understandable.
I'm Mike Ockenden's wife. Rebel, put your money where Mike's mouth is! I love his moustache but if you can get together with friends/colleagues and pledge £200 for Children In Need, I'll shave it off myself!
As I said earlier (in reference to many people's cavalier approach)...."it's scary!"
chinoReed is right. I know of similar instances. TSO's will clobber you!! EW don't give up your day job whatever that might be.
I can confirm that you must prove the HIP was ordered before marketing. A competitor of mine has just been busted for this. He ordered a HIP after it being requested and they laughed in his face. Be aware, I don't know how these wires have been crossed (especially on here) but the earlier report is incorrect. Ordering a HIP after TSO request it WILL land you in hot water.
Ockenden attempting a Lister. simply failed.
AceOfSpades - rather than make silly uninformed judgments, perhaps you may wish to consider that the '7 day' thing appeared in report from the OFT after a survey of Trading Standards said HIPs were impossible to police. It was reported on this site! To quote: "The report also points out an almost unknown fact – that while Trading Standards officers can require an agent to produce a HIP, the agent has seven days to do that.
The report says this allows agents to cover up any breach.
Nick Salmon, founder of the anti-HIP group SPLINTA, said: “I must admit I had missed this in the 2004 Housing Act. I had always thought that a Trading Standards officer could walk into your office and demand to see a HIP on the spot. They can’t!
“In fact there is a seven-day grace period to produce the HIP to them. No wonder agents have been happily ignoring HIP requirements.
“In effect you can get on with marketing a property quietly and if by some slim chance a TSO comes prowling, you order the HIP and there you are!
“It makes a total mockery of the legislation – which Trading Standards are saying they cannot pro-actively police.
Quite the comedian Vossy, extremely funny. HIPS ARE a legal requirement. While this policy is in place, TSO should be checking as many agencies as physically possible. You're lucky they haven't done more already. I don't particularly agree with HIPs, but they're not that bad. As long as they are compulsory, follow the rules or get fined. It's as simple as that. End of story.All this talk of being able to instruct a HIP within 7 days of being requested for it? Are you mad? Seriously, any fool can order a HIP when asked to produce it. You will need to prove that it was ordered prior to marketing....within 7 days of being asked to produce it. Some people, honestly - it is scary :S
Forwhatitsworth - I am correct in this - Tippex anyone!!
HIP HIP NOT HURRAY....smacks of rats deserting a sinking ship. No one other than the HIP providers want HIP`s to stay....its like allowing a vampire to manage a blood bank..ridiculous.
EW - you are correct in that you have 7 days in which to 'produce' the HIP once requested BUT the HIP must have been 'prepared' PRIOR to marketing. That is what Trading Standards are looking for, trust me! Also I don't agree that we only have 6 months left to run, it took Labour years to fulfill their pledge to bring Hips in, how long will it take Cameron to scrap them once he's elected? I don't trust any of them and I'm not convinced they will go quickly if at all. I also agree with JO, "there needs to be a level playing field".
Good news the sooner we weed these out of the system the better for all concerned, maybe they should change jobs and become a government figure they are all the same. CROOKS
Maybe we should not have an election as the result appears to have been decided - hold on to your crystal balls. As for agents flouting the HIP Law - It is common practice and well known, the industry is one of the most corrupt I have ever worked in.
If a TSO comes into your office, you have 7 days in which to provide the HIP! The legislation doesn't really help to ensure determined rogue agents are compliant. Anyway - by the time this had been properly policed, HIPs will be voluntary anyway. Frankly Trading Standards would be better off hunting down agents who have nicked deposits from clients accounts as this is a crime which actually has a victim and one about which people actually give a damn.
About time too! We all know this is happening across the board and whether you support HIPs /AHIPP is irrelevant - there needs to be a level playing field. Well done (and well done NK - LOL!)
These agents should be named and shamed they should then be paraded through the centre of london and then banished to the tower for committing this most heinous of crimes, they must be stopped immediatley what will they do next? agree sales for little old ladies before checking that they are not international money launderers?
Sounds like a child throwing the toys out of the pram. AHIPP are pathetic, maybe they should have a good look at their members first or perhaps the NAEA can have a good look and report to the OFT the ones that are failing to provide correct searches etc. Probably not worth doing as HIP's will be history soon.
My offer of £20 for Children in Need if Ockenden shaves his appalling porn star moustache off, is still on the table...as will the moustache hopefully.
This is a case of the stable door being closed a tad late - HIPs only have 6 months left to run, and AHIPP are trying to cash in as much money as possible before they join the dole queue.
I know of one of these 'big name' agents in Kensington & Chelsea that has been flouting the law because I was the one who received the phonecall from the agent saying they had been visited by TSO and urgently needed my company to provide some HIPs as they had been rumbled for being 'non-compliant'. I also have the TSO paperwork to support this.
AHIPP - 'Association of Home Information Pack Policemen'?