BRITISH PROFESSIONS TODAY: THE STATE OF ... - Property Week

Social and political contributions continued >>
4.3 Case study: RICS and Home Information
Packs (HIPs)
The recent high-profile case of RICS’ opposition to the
government-proposed Home Information Packs (HIPs) and Energy
Performance Certificates (EPCs) illustrates that public interest and
political interests do not always coincide. The concept of a “Home
Information Pack,” to include evidence of title, copies of planning,
regulations consents, a local search, guarantees for any work on
the property, and an energy performance certificate, was first
vetted as early as 1997 (Knight 2007). HIPs were conceived
with the intent of making the home-buying process simpler and
quicker, and to ensure that fewer sales broke down. HIPs would
also include a Home Condition Report (HCR), carried out by
qualified Home Inspectors, which would detail the condition of
the property in plain English.
In their policy response to the Department of Communities and
Local Government (DCLG) consultation, RICS states that while
it supports reforms to the home-buying process to lend timeliness
and certainty to the current system, a number of concerns with
HIPs led the body to seriously question the policy. The government
intended to implement this proposal without ensuring that the
certification schemes for the inspectors or the databases to
hold their reports would be set up in time. According to RICS
spokesman Jeremy Leaf: “The Government’s own research shows
that we will need up to 7,400 Home Inspectors to ensure the
smooth introduction of the new regime.
However, to date, only a handful of candidates have satisfactorily
completed the Diploma in Home Inspection, the key prerequisite
for obtaining a Home Inspector’s licence”. (“HIP day...” 2005)
In addition, serious concerns about whether enough “specialist
energy assessors” required to have all homes energy rated once
every ten years would be available to do the job (Ibid.). RICS
was particularly concerned that the government was putting this
proposal forward without consulting the appropriate industry
members. Heavy hitters across the property industry opposed the
proposal, including RICS, the National Association of Estate
Agents, and large firms, eg Spicerhaart. Yet, rather than consulting
RICS or major firms, the government consulted people that had
set up businesses to be HIPs providers (Craig 2007).
After the government refused to meet with RICS on a number
of occasions, RICS finally went public with its discontent. On
15 May 2007, RICS started Judicial Review proceedings against
the Department for Communities and Local Government for the
department’s failure to carry out a full consultation on HIPs. The
government called RICS self-interested (and anti-green), implying
that RICS had ulterior motives and wanted to control the
implementation of HIPs. The body countered that in fact this was
quite low-value work for its members and very few (less than 100
of 100,000) were interested in becoming accredited to perform
this work. RICS maintains that the proposal was unworkable
(Craig 2007).
30