Personal HIPS experiences - please let us know.

[Nemesis]

It will go on the CSC site as it's a public document.

Thanks Stephen - I had hoped RICS would do something, hope SPAB is too, I think something no matter how short is being considered (time permitting) re the wasted resources of the Pathfinder demolitions etc.


Please people - you don't have to be RICS or SPAB to put forward 'evidence', which is simply opinion really! So if you feel you have something to say please say it. It all gets taken note of.

 

[Inspector John]

I'm assuming by your tone's that you all are Anti HIP's, EPC's HCR's,DEA's and HI's.
Is this True?
*
*
*

 

[Nemesis]

I think I can speak for most of us (and possibly RICS...) and say yes...

 

[Inspector John]

So perhaps whatever I may say, may not be welcome?

There's a lot of us who are conservationists, and it's far better to influence us and by that we can influence others to your concerns

So then, it was fine to talk to you.
Sorry it was so short I'll shall say good bye and I wish you all well in all your endeavours
*
*
*
Ps Yes we here understand that some in RICS are hostile to the whole HIP's program

 

[skier-hughes]

Short and sweet.

I'd say you're not going to go far if you carn't take a bit of flack. From the posts made, nobody has said it's your fault, but the system.

Personally I'd like a bit of inside knowledge, letting us know how things are going in the real world, so I'd prefer you stayed and participated.

Again, my personal opinon is that these are made to suit the newer house, so you must be prepared for sceptiscism from those of us who don't own houses that fit in a tick box.

Graham

 

[MdB]

Ditto what skier-hughes says. The flak will be at the implementation rather than the idea or you personally. Insider knowledge is also very useful.

I think the general idea of informing house holders of how energy performing their house is a good one but any figures have to a) be accurate and b) come with a lot of explanation as to what they mean and what is sensible to do something about.

The accuracy worries me as without exact details of how the house is constructed or some sort of heat test I can't see how a good figure can be found. In my house for example, it has some old stone rubble walls which will lose a lot of heat. However, nobody can tell me how much. U values for stone walls are not easy to come by. The modern(ish) part of the house may well perform better under the scheme though they shouldn't as they are so much thinner. The back wall under the scheme will probably be assumed to be cavity construction so score moderately well even though it is actually solid block. The telegraph articles (below) show some of the problems of giving figures for unusual and/or period properties and I would be interested in if you or any other inspector would have done any better in the same circumstances? A rebuttal would be very interesting to read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/29/nhips229.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/29/nhips129.xml

 

[Nemesis]

I'm not sure that vested interests - ie those who are making a living out of this - will in truth have a great desire to influence any government decison makers. A handful might - most will simply wish to tick the boxes and make a living.

I know Stephen was heavily involved for a considerable time in the developent of HIPS. He began by being enthusiastic about the idea, but like us all I think has cooled once the reality of how a one size fits all policy will not do anything for home sellers and buyers has overcome the rhetoric.

Truthfully, I doubt there's anything at all you could tell me about my home or one that I may buy that I wouldn't be able to fathom out for myself.

I don't want to pay for some pointless survey/certificate either telling me that fitting double glazing instead of my original sash windows might save me a tiny amount per year, or indeed that fitting loft insulation is a useful thing to do, in order to sell my home. Wearing a jumper clearly doesn't enter the equation.

I manage to fasten my own shoe laces, and I suspect I know rather more about historic buildings, how they work, and their care and repair than 99.9 percent of those coming along to do a report on it.

The average buyer would probably run a mile anyhow, or demand a reduction in costs to spoil the place. Estate agents have conditioned people to think that modernising and upgrading is what is required, to hell with history, and as is seen by David's question above, period buildings, regardless, are going to score badly.

Next there will be lobbying for enforced 'upgrading' Even more CPO's to get rid of them and line the pockets of the ticky tacky housebuilders.

Don't think so?

Look at Pathfinders.

I think the initial idea - to speed up the buying and selling process, which I agree is far from ideal, by having searches, surveys etc all carried out in advance and part of a pack to give to prospective purchasers - was OK as an idea, but is impractical in reality. I have major reservations too about the ability of certain vulnerable people, such as the elderly, being able to manage to get all the information together, paying upfront to do it, with no certainty of a sale.

I wonder how much influence you will have and with whom?

I think that the government will quetly drop all this in a year or two, at the moment it has to carry on as so many have paid for the training. I can think of other walks of life where a big idea has been quietly dropped after a few years, or totally downgraded, after people have spent large sums training, so this may prove little different.

 

[Inspector John]

Oh yes I'm fully aware of the flack that's been and is to come to an ordinary feller like me...

I've done the water test here on this forum and the Ph is very low, to acidic which is a pity

I didn't come here to argue the where's and what nots the pro's and con's.
for you to tell me I can't hack it...

I suspected that this may happen if I posted here and I was right... I was hoping you'd all use a bit of intelligence or should I say common-sense.... when talking to what I think you perceive as your enemy

As I said there's many of us who are conservationist more that some of you here We want to protect buildings but if you don't want to help improve what we have in the HIPs then it's your loss....
anyway that's it now
I'll leave it there I don't want you all getting more wrong and misleading idea's about us

 

[Stephen]

The RICS is not anti ECPs or HIPs, but are concerned about various matters. If you go onto the RICS web site there are detailed papers and press releases that state the RICS position.

I am not anti EPC, HIPs, etc. BUT ...

In a basic way EPCs can make the public aware of energy performance issues, but they are a rather crude tool and claims that have been made for what they will achieve (e.g. by government, etc) are very overstated or naively optimistic.

The Telegraph article in which Jef Howell questions the validity of EPCs is very useful and revealing. It is quite clear that EPCs ae designed for 'standard' modern estate houses. Beyond these an EPC has little useful value.

In any event EPCs by themselves will, in my opinon, will do lttle to assist energy use.

HIPs as originally intended (some years ago) could have been a useful package that may well have helped in the conveyancing process. However, over the years the changes to them and what was eventually brought out rendered them of little help. Again the claims for what they would achieve were overstated.


As for those who trained as HIs from outside the proeprty professions I have a great deal of sympathy. RICS has made and is continuing to make routes available for membership so that their training is not totally wasted.

The fact that I, others and bodies such as RICS question the present EPCs, HIPs, etc does not equate to an 'anti' view. It is not necessarily so black and white as that - there are many greys between.

When the RICS submission to the select committee is available for general consumption you will see that it is a balanced and carefully thought through position.

The other issue to flag up is that domestic EPCs are merely the beginning - public and then commercial buildings are next.

 

[Nemesis]

Which is worrying, as they will be used by would be developers I have no doubt to justify demolition.

As for Inspector John - you asked what we thought, we told you. We aren't shooting the messenger, but the message.

And as for being more 'conservationist' than some of us here - how do you know? What qualifies you as being 'conservationist'?

I can't say I'm very impressed so far, Inspector John - insulting people by saying we haven't used our intelligence doesn't inspire confidence. I have put my concerns, others have put theirs - are you suggesting these concerns have no validity?

How can you help us to improve the HIPS any more than we can do ourselves by raising the issue at government level?


Here's a link to the RICS site.

http://tinyurl.com/2cekr3


I appreciate, Stephen, the issue isn't black and white, I think all of us hoped that at the outset HIPS might improve the current situation with regard to buying a home, but once the details had been looked into really it became obvious it was going to bring another set of problems. This was pushed through without properly testing, and so we have foisted upon us an experiment.

 

[Penners]

if you feel you have something to say please say it. It all gets taken note of.

Do you mean taken note of by the Government?

Goodness! When did that start happening?

 

[Nemesis]

Well, it all works slowly, and CSC reports are usually dismissed in the response by HMG, but any evidence submitted is taken note of by the all-party CSC.

Drip by drip ... it's called democracy and it's how things work.
if no-one complains then all will think it all OK...

 

[Nemesis]

From the latest Heritage Link:

English Heritage: Home Information packs and traditional buildings

From 1st August anyone selling a house with four or more bedrooms is legally required to put together a home information pack for potential home buyers. This will be extended to three bedroom houses from 10th September see http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882&PressNoticeID=2488 .


English Heritage offers three interim guidance notes to home inspectors and energy assessors on assessing the energy performance of traditionally constructed and historic homes. Approximately 25% of existing dwellings are of traditional construction and this includes most listed buildings.

The Home Information Pack guidance includes Energy Performance Certificates for historic and traditional homes, Advice for Domestic Energy Assessors, and SAP ratings for historic and traditional homes. All three are downloadable from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/hips

Energy Performance Certificates assess the likely energy performance of homes and are generated by a software package which takes data from a survey completed on site by the Domestic Energy Assessor. The software is designed primarily with modern dwellings in mind and makes generalised assumptions about all homes based on standard, usually modern, methods and materials of construction. Most importantly, it automatically assumes that all traditional building types are less energy efficient than modern ones, an assumption which has yet to be empirically validated.

In the guidance, English Heritage advises home owners to adopt such recommendations with caution and urges Domestic Energy Assessors to override them if necessary. Only those recommendations that the assessor is certain to cause no damage to the long term performance of the building or diminish its appeal should appear as final recommendations on the certificate. Individuals carrying out recommended work to a listed building should also secure consent before carrying out any works. Back

EH: Don't rush into energy saving changes

Commenting on the new requirements, Bill Martin, Conservation Director at English Heritage, said 'We all have a responsibility to make our homes more energy efficient and no building type should be exempt from this. Energy Certificates will help to raise awareness, but it is important for the public to know that the ways to achieve energy efficiency in modern housing are different from that in traditional houses.

'The current system of certifying all housing types using a standardised method which does not consider the fundamental differences in the fabric between old and modern buildings can produce incorrect and highly misleading assessments. Traditional buildings are likely to be rated low in energy efficiency and given a high estimate of fuel consumption under the present system, and we are concerned that the public will rush to make changes. We hope with these guidance notes home owners will have a better understanding of what the certificates really mean and be in a better position to judge how valid the recommendations are, avoiding costly and potentially illegal mistakes along the way.'

 

[Nemesis]

Torygraph latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/nrhips109.xml


' Loopholes in the new regulations have already been exposed. Canny sellers can avoid the packs in a number of ways.

One is to remove a bed from a bedroom to create a three-bedroom house with a study or boxroom; another is to cancel a pack after it has been ordered - a pack need only have been "ordered", not purchased, to market a property; a third is paying the £200 penalty fine if caught without one - far cheaper than a HIP, and getting caught is unlikely in any case, as trading standards officials have admitted that they don't have the resources to enforce the packs.'

 

[borischarlton]

I think that you will find that the fine is £200 a day that the house is on the market without a pack, not as inferred £200 in total.
I find the most annoying thing about H.I.P.s is that it would seem you can spout any old rubbish about them because there are so few that have taken the time to really find out the details. As the packs stand they are a total joke, however, in their origonal form I think they would have made a real difference. Its such a shame that the govenment caved in.
Rob

 

[Nemesis]

I don't think that they caved in as much as discovered that it was all unworkable.

 

[Pford75]

The original idea was workable...it functions in similar form in many other countries globally. Scotland has a few differences, but the core concept of an offer on property being binding is a good one. You are then left with the question of whether to force vendors to pull together the information or prospective buyers to invest before making their binding offer.

At the end of the day, as others have pointed out.....the market will decide what any property is worth...not the contents of a report. I can see that the energy certificates are superficial, but I'm surprised that some people who are as passionate as they are about CO2 emissions...see them as entirely bad things.

Sure, they may not be 100% accurate, but if they convince 10% of the population to insulate their loft, isn't that a good thing?

 

[Nemesis]

I wonder how many have NOT insulated their loft?

It seems to me a waste of time, money and energy to have to commission a pretty useless report. One which even EH has reservations about!

 

[skier-hughes]

Every house we've bought has always needed loft insulation, this last one (period property) being no exception.

 

[Pford75]

Likewise...the reality is that there are lots of houses out there, without adequate/any loft insulation. If the report has only a small impact on these, surely that's a good thing?

It does seem slightly inconsistent to bang on about CO2 and yet at the same time moan about something which will probably have a significant impact on reducing emissions