HIPS have reduced Home Purchases collapsing by bringing Ownership details and important issues such as Covenants to the beginning of the buying process, we complete HIPS in under 7 days!

The so called “professionals” A Solicitor missed out a Covenant on a client of ours £500k development, which basically meant he couldnt even fit Double Glazing never mind the huge extension to the property. He now has had to pay £17k for the right to do work on his own property, the “professional” solicitor now has to be counter sued which could take years to recoup the costs.

When we researched the Covenant it was 2 pages long!Not a line or paragraph, and the Solicitor missed this. It was a pre-HIP Legislation sale, if a HIP would of been in place I doubt it would of been missed as the purchaser would have saw the “missed” covenant by the so called property professional.

HIPS are a good product that stop purchsases collapsing at late stages, speed up the home buying process and have drastically reduced Search costs etc.. The only new thing is an EPC which aims to help the environment, reduce running costs which is essential in the current financial situation and is mandatory anyway for EU States.

With regards to your assertion that “they declined the offer as they dont agree with the principle. Labour wanted to use their professional name to give the idea credit.” I strongly suggest that you check your facts rather than rely on RICS spin.

The introduction and roll out of HIPs has been one fiasco after another – one of which was caused by RICS. However, the principle is a good one and the benefits are there to be seen even with the flaws that we have in the current system. The move forward to an exchange ready HIP is what is both required by both the industry and public alike.

May I first of all congratulate you on your Diploma, a qualification you are obviously proud of. My 16 year old son is currently doing 4 A levels aswell, so I understand the study you must have put in for the 1 you’ve achieved ; )

They declined the offer as they dont agree with the principle. Labour wanted to use their professional name to give the idea credit. With the RICS and NAEA you have 2 professional bodies who have been dealing in property for a very very long time. They have stringent requirements for members aimed at being in the publics best interests, because of this they are very respected and know much more about the property market than any ‘director general’ of a company formed to sell a new idea.

This is typical Labour interfering blind ignorance, creating ‘jobs’ and wasting everyones money.

The sooner they get rid of these the better and leave the inspections up to the professionals, not people who have been on 3 day ‘crash’ courses on ’surveying’.

Maybe this is a time when NAEA RICS and IDEA get around a table for some brain storming,
Both organisations should work with us, IDEA and the CLG

Colin Bailey DipDEA MIDEA ANAEA