Home seller's packs...

[NT]

NT

Whether you vote labour or not, these will remain.

Whatever other parties say publicly they will not get rid of HIPs once implemented. They will either keep it or modify it, but not get rid of.

I'm sure. No party wants to give away a cash cow. Would lose a lot of votes as well as money.

The reason, primarily, is that because of Kyoto and European Directives they will need to have Energy Assessments of EVERY property in the UK (the date keeps shifting, but around 2010 is a fair guess). EVERY means commercial as well.

If the govt wanted to do a door to door assessment of housing energy use it could, and with majority public support. HIPs are something else with this tacked on.

Therefore the cash scenario painted by NT is a relative rarity.

Its a minority of the market for sure, but its not insignificant.

Any training of anyone looking at properties must deal with the majority first and foremost and this by its nature will exclude pre 1920 (ish) buildings as they make up only c. 20% of the housing stock. The training of Home Inspectors was in fact very thorough with regard to construction and building defects.

So if I understand you correctly, inspectors wont be properly competent to assess 20% of the buildings they will assess, but the training of Home Inspectors was in fact very thorough?


NT

 

[Stephen]

NT

Quite right to pick this up as my comments were not entirely clear.

c. 80% of the domestic property stock is post 1920 and all professionals (not just surveyors) are trained to deal with modern buildings first and foremost. With surveying degree courses it is a bit hit and miss as to whether older buildings are dealt with, some courses do indeed have conservation modules but not all.

Home Inspector training focuses on modern building materials and techniques, but does include an awareness of older buildings and in fact I believe the tests include at least one example of older buildings.

In terms of what they are taught a Home Inspector can complete their training and be more aware of modern domestic building construction and defects than many mortgage valuers and, in some cases, some building surveyors. That said, the training is only on basic construction and defect identification. They are not trained to any detailed extent on repair techniques, etc because they are not expected to provide solutions, they merely identify defects. Think of a surveyor with better training on building construction and defect assessment than most mortgage valuers, but with no or very little training on repairs, etc, unlike the majority of building surveyors - this gives you an idea of where a Home Inspector sits in the range of training.

In terms of post 1920 domestic buildings I would be as or more confident in a Home Inspector assessing defects than many mortgage valuers, but I would not want them to specify repairs.

Regarding pre 1920 domestic buildings the problem is no different to any other professional in that the training is lacking. It is this that I and others are concentrating on. In fact I do know that some training courses are better than others (much the same as for general surveyor training). Nonetheless, I would still be against letting the basic Home Inspector loose on a listed building.

Turning to the HCR itself, there is a requirement for the Home Inspector to be competent. It is this very issue that I, Peter Ambrose and others are looking at - define this specific competence and how to assess it within the proposed system. Once this is dealt with we can address the training issue so that there will be Home Inspectors competent for inspection of listed buildings.

I hope this is more helpful in understanding roughly where the training of a Home Inspector sits.

Stephen

 

[Stephen]

Many concerns here seem to be about the problems that mortgage valuations raise and the assumption is that the new system will throw up the same problems. But with HCRs we have something that is specifically not a mortgage valuation. At the time of preparation there is no lender involved and no pressure to make recommendations based on a lender's requirements. The only pressure on the Home Inspector to err from the independent path is from the seller. However, the system includes checks to help ensure that this does not happen.

The HCR identifies defects and categorises them to give the reader an indication of whether the defect can be ignored (is normal maintenance, etc), whether it needs attention soon, or urgently, or simply needs further investigation. It is not for the HCR to then tell the reader what to do about it. This is perhaps the weakness of the HCR, but it does mean that a seller can decide to market the property with those defects and adjust the price accordingly, or get something done about them.

The important thing here is that the HCR should provide a completely unbias report that identifies defects in specific categtories. This information is there for all to see. Although not imposssible it would be difficult for a Home Inspector to be persuaded by a seller to give a bias report. On this basis there will be little need for a buyer to repeat the complete survey process. However, the buyer may well want their own surveyor to advise on the specific defects identified. The proposed system allows for the fact that the buyer will probably want advice on defects identified and this advice would not be from the original Home Inspector.

The HCR is made available to any potential purchaser as and when it is completed and uploaded. If the seller decides to do something about one or more defects identified there is no requirement for the information to be included in the HIP, but it would be madness not to - why undertake the work otherwise?

The issue for all, particularly here when considering older/historic buildings is who will specify the repairs, etc? This will apply whether it is the seller or buyer seeking that further advice.

It is here that RICS is working on provision of a range of follow-up products to supplement the HCR. These may be used as stand alone reports or directly linked to a HCR. The important issues we are considering is how to ensure the competence of those delivering such reports.

As can be seen from above, the influence of a lender does not enter the scenario.

By the time the buyer has sorted things out and is proceeding with a purchase the lender will have all the information and will simply make a decision whether to lend or not, at what level, etc, etc.

If neither seller nor buyer has sought further information on high category defects it may still be open to a lender to place conditions or retentions on the property until specific defects are dealt with to the lender's satisfaction. This would be no different to the present mortgage situation. However, any sensible seller or buyer will foresee such and deal with in advance.

I hope this goes some way to explaining the way the system is intended to work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are still issues to deal with and potential problem areas, but in my view it will be an improvement on the present system, at least where mortgage lenders are involved.

 

[NT]

Thank you for your explanation.

Maybe its just me. I just cant see how mandating that 20% of the population must, when they sell, pay for a survey from a surveyor not competent to survey their house could be anything but madness, and a legally enforced ripoff.

That there is any question of the scheme going ahead on this basis raises both my eyebrows.

Sorry, I'm sure its not what you wanted to hear.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

I agree! One in five seems a high figure to admit to this scheme not actually being of benfeit.

I'm also surprised that the figure for pre -1920 houses is 'only' 20% - or is that after Pathfinder has bulldozed tens of thousands of them?

 

[plumbers mate]

Nemesis said "I'm also surprised that the figure for pre -1920 houses is 'only' 20% - or is that after Pathfinder has bulldozed tens of thousands of them?"

Round here, the majority are pre 1920's housing. And will probably still be here and in good nick when the 1979/80ish built Pathfinder housing further towards town has fallen down.

 

[Stephen]

The figure actually comes from government records and the figure could be as high as 25%. In some areas the proportion is going to be far higher and in others far lower. As with all statistics the figure is open to interpretation and is an average.

The HCR guidance for the Home Inspector specifically includes a whole section on the inspection of older and historic buildings.

The HCR specifcally asks whether a property is listed or in a conservation area whereas very few mortgage vlauations do. This therefore forces the inspector to consider this, whereas mortgage valuations don't.

The very fact that there are the guidelines (written by Richard Oxley by the way - his book is often mentioned here) means that the competence of the inspector can more readily be questionned and is an issue - again unlike the present mortgage system. However, there is concern that inspectors will take on jobs they are not competent to deal with and this is something being considered. As with all walks of life there will be those who ignore the rules or over-assess their competence.

The proposed HCR system (if it ever comes in) may not be perfect but will contain far more safeguards for historic buildings than exist in the present system of mortgage valuations, etc.

Remember also that the HCR merely identifies the defect it does not make any recommendation as to what to do about it. Yes, there will still be opportunities for the wrong people getting involved in the follow up work.

However, as of this week I am tasked with finding some surveyors (JohnEds - are you interested in getting involved?) to help write specific report format templates for specific issues with some very tight guidance. The three we are starting with are 'Cracking, Dampness and Timber Rot & infestation. These will be RICS products independent of the high street people. They will be linked with internal guidance for surveyors and a series of leaflets for the public. In fact the first drafts of some of these are under consideration at present. They will be for all and any type of property and the guidance will cover a very wide spectrum of property types, etc. Whatever happens with HCR these products will be launched and will provide something for the public that until now has not specifically existed. It is envisaged that these would normally be undertaken by Building Surveyors (not mortgage valuers).

As a result of HCR it is not all doom and gloom.

Stephen

 

[Nemesis]

The problems start though when people consider that all historic buildings are listed or in Conservation Areas... they aren't!

And not being listed is no guarantee that a building is of no historic interest or merit...

 

[Penners]

And not being listed is no guarantee that a building is of no historic interest or merit...

So how does it happen that such buildings slip through the listing net?

 

[Nemesis]

Because listing is an imprecise art, and there are stringent criteria. Often IMHO EH gets it wrong, but that's just my HO!

Currently this lovely building is the subject of a listing application. The owners wish to demolish it and replace it with a block of undistingushed flats for holiday lets. They say that the hotel isn't making cash. They have closed it.

The local are furious, as well they might be - it's a major part of this small village.

However, although it has a great deal of historic interest locally, and architecturally it's very pleasing and by a known architect, Ferguson, it probably won't be listed. It's late 19th century for a start - and 19th c buildings have to be very special indeed to get listed these days - and the owners (18 months) have sadly ripped out a great deal of the original interior. Architecturally it's very forward looking, with touches of Arts and Crafts about it.

So listing is unlikely, and so it will probably be bulldozed. EH will say that there are plenty of othwer 19th c hotels listed as exemplars...

It is in an AONB<which may mean that the local authority can ask for soemthing a little less dreadful to replace it, and change of use may be a sticking point, but in reality there is little to prevent the owners doing as they please.


http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hstchg/skinburness6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hstchg/skinburness.htm&h=241&w=375&sz=115&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=IUu5vRHC9zt9DM:&tbnh=78&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSkinburness%2BHotel%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB%26sa%3DN


http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hstchg/skinburness6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hstchg/skinburness.htm&h=241&w=375&sz=115&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=IUu5vRHC9zt9DM:&tbnh=78&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSkinburness%2BHotel%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB%26sa%3DN

 

[Stephen]

The guidance I refered to does not specifically mention lsited buildings, merely older or unusual. Although the HCR itself does ask about listing the guidance notes are clear that not only listed buildings need a different approach but all older structures.

Earlier this year Marianne Suhr and I ran a series of RICS Roadshows called the 1 in 5 building nd we are due to repeat them next year. There is great interest and general acceptance that older buildings (not just listed) need appropriate consideration.

Stephen

 

[Penners]

19th c buildings have to be very special indeed to get listed these days

"These days" sort of implies that it used to be easier to get C19th buildings listed. Is that the case? if so, why the change of heart?

I can't see why 100-200 yr old buildings should be regarded as any less deserving of listing than 400-500 yr old buildings. OK - there are undoubtedly more of them, but surely meritworthy architecture is meritworthy architecture, regardless of age?

 

[Nemesis]

Actually - it's probably always been the case with later 19th c and certainly 20thc buildings - very hard to get listed, as there are so many of them - but pre the 1990 Act and various other changes there did seem to be a great many things listed which wouldn't be now. Many older listings say things like 'interior not inspected' which certainly isn't what happens now!

http://www.heritage.co.uk/apavilions/glstb.html

 

[Craig]

Indeed - the listing for my street makes it clear they didn’t go inside any of them though they did look through a letter box - they noted the presence of some stick balusters...

 

[Nemesis]

What is particularly irritating is when buildings are not recommended for listing as EH says that they are too altered - then listed buildings are given consent to alter in such a manner that if they were put forward for listing they would be turned down...

Middlesex Guildhall - but that's the government so that's OK... it wants a Supreme Court so anything goes.

 

[Penners]

they did look through a letter box - they noted the presence of some stick balusters...

If anyone starts peering through my letterbox, they'll quickly notice the presence of some stick bruises.