Comments on: Have Personal Local Authority Searches Improved?

By: MargaHal

MargaHal — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:55:42 +0000

Great post, you have pointed out some great points , I besides believe this s a very great website.

By: EX PS WORKER

EX PS WORKER — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:06:54 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree with ‘Juansearcher’. I worked for a long established PS supplier for over 3 years & was also disgusted in how we were forced to cut corners & be dishonest to clients. Often giving completely false info & charging for extra searches that weren’t necessary,using previous results from neighbouring properties & basically encouraging people to buy extra things that they did not need. When people asked for the more expensive chancel searches, the lower rate one was ordered and passed off as the more expensive, more accurate search. The list of dodgy thngs they did were endless and yes it was purely GREED driven. Having reported them to TS,OFT & the Police, to my utter disgust and amazement, no one would do anything about it & I was told I could actually be arrested for persuing the matter!
Like the above ex PS worker, I would NEVER trust a Personal Search from a Personal Search Agent ~ the company I worked for carried out work on behalf of many other Agents and vice versa, & it was pretty shocking to realise how bad these were across the board. The councils were demonised by the company I worked for, but I found all councils I had dealings with to be professional, helpful, knowledgeable & honest & I would much rather trust the info they provide directly rather than to ever trust such an important thing to PS Agents.

By: Juansearcher

Juansearcher — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:28:22 +0000

I worked for a major supplier of personal searches/ HIPs and was, alongside most of my colleagues, disgusted the way we were “ordered” to cut corners by or managers/directors obtaining various info to cut costs. This was blamed on other companies doing the same and we had to compete to keep the business…(More profit for Directors – GREED -was the real reason I’m sure) I saw many other companies doing the same as I knew and worked alongside them and would say the majority of searches returned were probably inaccurate. I’m so glad I no longer have to lie for a dishonourable company anymore. I would never allow a personal search company to provide a search for any future house moves as I know from the inside what would be missed.

By: Joyce

Joyce — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:00:35 +0000

Have they improved? you are joking, they are worse than they ever were. We say but do you not want this information if it is for a HIP, they say, not now i must pay for it.

By: Concerned

Concerned — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:25:48 +0000

To be fair it’s a very gray area about where some of the more pro active search Companies get their information from as it doesn’t all have to come from the LA direct, there are many ways of gaining the information legitimately.

Unfortunately there obviously will be some who are just guesssing but what is even scarier is that some are/have been operating without the correct specific search insurance since April!

Due to a poor communication staement from CLG before the April changes came into effect many search agents thought that they couldn’t have this Insurance any more when in fact they just couldn’t rely on it for missing information.

Incredibly the PCCB didn’t instigate any ongoing auditing specific to the changes ( really quite large changes as well!) and members are only audited at renewal, so any search agent who joined around Feb/March and not conforming could carry on supplying non compliant searches with NO Insurance for nearly a year before anybody realises the mistakes being made!

Everyone should take a close look at their search provided to check it conforms to schedule 6 ( and 7 ) of the HIP regulations and not take any blanket assurance of quality for granted!

By: tb

tb — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:35:56 +0000

As a Land Charges manager for over 10 years every day I see persoanl search agents cutting corners:

Only one personal search agent inspects the Compulsory Purchase Order file, which is provided free of charge, therefore Con29 question 3.11 must be guessed “No” by the other agents.

It isn’t the only Con29 question personal search agents guess either, just to save time and money. Even agents that claim to comply with the Search Code!

By: Marie

Marie — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:45:03 +0000

Working in a Land Charges section in a large authority I can confirm that none of the personal search agents who carry out personal searches buy full data sets from the authority. In fact the only questions asked are normally 1.1 f, g, and h.