 Re: Petition to ABOLISH HIP's
The introduction of HIPs is a sad story that reflects hypocrisy and a sad lack of co-operation from the bodies representing property professionals.
Governments, whether one approves of them or not, do not have it easy. If they do not react to demand from a group wanting reform they are told they do not listen. If they react to pressure for change they are told they are displaying a knee-jerk reaction.
There was a clamour for the conveyancing process to be speeded up. People said something must be done and the press joined in. The government promised to do something. However, once they started the consultation process surveyors/estate agents did not want to get involved in the conveyancing process and lawyers, whilst perhaps conceding that improvements could be made, were reluctant to see changes in a system they were used to. The result was that government, not wishing to be perceived as going back on its promise, went it alone. The result was the HIP which, while the intentions behind it were good, has not proved to be the success that was hoped for.
The property professionals, peeved at not being involved when they had declined to be involved but nevertheless with some justification, criticised the system and everyone else joined in. This did not stop the professionals from charging extra for drawing up HIPs when most of the work involved would have to be have done anyway.
The system has gone some way to shortening the time between agreeing a sale and exchanging contracts because a contract and supporting documents are now available on a sale being agreed. This does not of course guarantee that the buyer's conveyancer will look at what he receives as soon as he gets it. Now whilst some of the delay in conveyancing can be put down to delay by lawyers they are by no means wholly to blame. The cause of most delay is the dreaded chain.
As far as I know England and Wales are the only countries where there are chains. That we have chains can be attributed in great part to the penny pinching and risk aversion of the property owning classes. In most countries when people want to move they sell up, rent and then look for somewhere else. If they can afford it they buy and then sell. To a less extent the lending practices of banks and building societies and the way property ownership is financed contribute to the problem.
If chains cannot be done away with, what is to be done?
HIPs should be quietly abandoned, or at least the element of compulsion removed. However, the principle behind them - that a seller should be ready to produce a contract as soon as a sale is negoatiated - needs to be encouraged. As soon as an agent is instructed the seller's conveyancers should be informed and asked to gather all the information needed to prepare a contract.
Sellers should think about whether or not they will offer properties with a survey. Such a survey should be accepted by the buyer's lenders on the basis that the person who prepared the survey owes them (and also the buyer) a duty of care.
Banks and building societies should issue certificates to the effect that they are committed to lend up to a specified amount to potential buyers subject only to seeing a satisfactory survey.
Take these two proposals together and you will have a situation where buyers will be more ready to look for properties with surveys already done and sellers will be looking for buyers who are guaranteed finance.
What about the conveyancing process? We live in times of high technology and improvements can be made. The Land Registry is keen, but no one else involved in the property business seems to be. Much can be streamlined and centralised.
So, what we need to do is say to the government: "Nice try, but think again. Get the lawyers, agents and financial institutions together in a room. Bang their heads together and make them come up with a system that is both efficient and value for money." Most countries have better systems. It should not be difficult to catch up. | 
