We will all have views for/against depending on our own individual experiences as a consumer or property professional. I maintain, with any ‘used’ (and not NHBC or other guaranteed, indeed even with this in many cases !) property, it is caveat emptor. A building can only ever be WYSIWYG. If there is a degree of ‘hidden’ risk it will always be to the vendor’s advantage to gloss over this. There is risk, even with rigourous searches and good surveying. If a buyer wants more freedom from risk, don’t buy, rent.

What is clear is that the EPC is a European requirement and this will stay, regardless of its perceived value: A ‘new’ (or nearly new) house will perform (in terms of EPC assessment) as well as the minimum requirements of the standards enforced at the time of building. An older property will perform relative to some guesses made in respect of construction standards of the time – i.e. pre 1985; little or no insulation. My experience is that where properties clearly have been improved the assessor will not account for this unless documentation exists to ‘prove’ the work has been carried out (cavity insuation injection for example) by a ‘competent’/registered contractor. Loft insulation in an easily accessible roofspace is about the only exception. Aspects of buildings which do have an impact on energy performance (holes in external fabric and air leakage, types of heating control, argon/air filled glazing units) are often unaccounted for because of limited knowledge of assessor or indeed inaccesible elements. There is a tendency to err on the side of worst case and the recommendations are often not perticularly feasible or good value. The EPC would in many cases appear to be the ‘important’ part of the HIP, it is all too often misleading or inaccurate and for just the properties which it intended to ‘warn’ purchasers about, their buyers are often the least concerned about the info which is provided !

No they are useless, as the Conservatives have said, do not rely on hips as your main source of income. What does everyone do!
I have been an agent for 20 years I piloted this scheme in 1998 it was then known as the Sellers Pack. It had exactly the same problems now as it did then. Scrap it and lets get back to good old fashioned estate agency without the red tape.

Further – when purchasing properties I ignore HIPs and instruct my solicitors to do likewise, as I operate on a ‘caveat emptor’ basis. The HIP is thus a complete waste of someone’s time and money.

Let HIPs become voluntary, and let the market decide whether they are useful or not.

If we find that vendors do not buy HIPs voluntarily and HIP providers fail to thrive in a free market, the latter will either have to produce a product that people actually want or find another source of income. So let’s remove the compulsion and put it to the test.

There is a search company which obtains data in this way from every local authority in the country but they do not claim they have ALL the data to compile a search. I understand each search request ALSO requires a visit to the local authority to complete the search.

Can I suggest you check the true facts with the search company concerned before stating ‘facts’ as you understand them as its very misleading!!

“This is a myth being put out by one particular personal search company who falsely claim to access every authority’s records which they haven’t for a fact. They mistakenly claim that they can get all of the CON29R info from subscribing to LA Minutes and local newspapers. If you believe that then I’d be astonished.”

You are living in a dream land if you can not see this. Search information is publically available and is provided by Home Owners themselves in part. Any large company with sizable investment can receive this information prior to it reaching the LA. At the end of the day the LA is just a regional hub to collect information about the Local area. If a company is large enough to create a similar model, collecting the same raw information will result in the same outcome. I do however agree that not all information will be available in this way and so the LA will need to be accessed. As a point of interest I would imagine the theory of this database style technology would extend up to the re-use of information. Using a search is up to the buyer’s discretion (solicitor) and so there is quite a substantial subjective nature to the accuracy and risk of information. A local solicitor will recognise high risk question/answers for the area which they cover and these will be the answers which
require the most up to date information. Re-using information on low risk questions (as long as it is well researched) should be ok, but I would admit a system to do this is would be technically very advanced and the logic design would need to be exceptional.

The ultimate result will be that all LA’s will generate a central electronic database from which you purchase a search. The search is date and time stamped so that when the property sale is proceeding you can submit for an update. This will allow only the information which has changed to be purchased again. In my opinion this type of model is most likely to come from a private company which has the vested interest to develop the technology. It is most likely that the company which achieves this will become nationalised.

Local Authorities reducing pricing has occurred because since the 6th April LA’s have been required to provide full access to all their information for the CON29R form. Because this means there is no longer a difference between an official and a personal search the LA’s lost their marketing potential in being the only provider of the full CON29R form. Now personal search companies were able to produce exactly the same report for cheaper (Lower admin costs, better technology). Those LA’s which attempted to charge less for the official than the personal search company can produce a search were challenged to provide exact costing of the information. (Public information). Most of the LA’s reduced their fees as it could not be proved how the information would cost so much! There are very few LA’s which can produce the official for a very competitive price. In support to my early statement these LA’s have invested in software/technology like a private company would.

“Despite that some personal search companies think that EIR should apply and that the tax paper should pay for PS companies to have the information for free to enable the PS company to make profits at the taxpayer’s expense.”

If you followed the market pricing and understood market pressures created from competition then past results will show any company attempting to make extra profits will loose market share against new competing businesses. The consumer benefits!