Home Condition Reports abandoned

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:52:04 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote (in article ):

You do, you know ;-)

[Doctor Drivel]

The idea is sound and right - a house MOT. That is the point. When you buy a house you know you are not going into a crock that is going to cost you £1000s a few years down the line. It should be looked at again and implemented.

[Doctor Drivel]

I didn't think Little Middle England would.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, anything involving a house is sound, a house MOT, is fine by me. It is a great idea.

Matt, of source they don't, as it hasn't been inspected.

Matt, it is not commissioned by the vendor. It would be "mandatory" and the vendor pays. Do you think a Part P inspector pulls back on the rules because of the person paying? You probably do. I suppose you think the same about MOT inspectors too. But you do come from Little Middle England.

[Doctor Drivel]

The tiny mind of Little Middle England. Amazing. This pillock hasn't looked at the concept of what was being implemented - which is very, very, sound indeed, a house MOT. He just wallows in delight because he misguidedly votes for the inbred Tories. You all know, the party that has a habit of ruining the country at ever opportunity and lining the pockets of the chosen few, of which he is not one.

Pathetic!!!!

[Mark]

IMHO Part P and it's ilk are there to discourage DIY and the use of self employed "handymen". They want everyone to use large firms so that the gov't get more Tax revenue. It all about Tax IMHO.

Mark

[Ed Sirett]

It's already here in part. Certain classes of government employees (e.g teachers and some health professions) are offered subsidised mortgages.

A condition of these loans is that the property has gas and electrical certification.

It'll only be a matter of time before a suit [1] at one or two of the main lenders thinks this is the best way they can protect themselves.

[1] Someone who has the job of making things safer for the lender and falls into the trap a piece of paper can do this.

[tim]

The American system does this perfectly well. It is included as part of the sales contract and effectively is the seller giving the buyer a personal warrenty against undeclared faults.

The problem with HCR is the requirement to get one before marketing the property.

tim

[tim]

The (other) problem with the HCR is that it is going to be a fairly basic check at unnecessarily high cost for what you get (As you have to have one there will be less incentive to bring the price down). It will be one of those reports that tells you everything you can see for yourself (if you CBA to look) and almost nothing that you can't. For 49% of house purchases it's going to be completely unnecessary and for another 49% of sales it will be completely inedaquate and a fuller survery will be required. Only for about 2% of sales will be be of any value (and yes it is obvious which sales these are)

tim

[Tony Bryer]

Given that they are charging £££ (from a quick Google Northern Rock are charging £565 for properties in the £250K-500K band) and how long the average valuation (not HBR) is reckoned to take, you don't think that there might be some element of vested interest here?

[Andy Wade]

No such person.

Yes, actually - and very definitely. What you're talking about here is assessing the condition of an existing electrical installation, i.e. a "periodic inspection." This is indeed carried out according to a quite well-defined set of rules, but the rules allow for limitations of inspection and testing to be agreed between the person doing the work (electrician, electrical surveyor) and the "person ordering the work" - i.e. the vendor in this case. So if the vendor says they don't want a particular circuit isolated for testing it won't be. If they don't want covers or wiring accessories removed for inspection because of the risk of damage to decorations, they won't be. And so on. The limitations will be noted in the report, but their significance won't necessarily be appreciated by the casual reader.

To my mind the whole HIP/HCR thing - which, as has already been said, wasn't going to include testing gas or electrical installations in any case - is fundamentally flawed. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Your analogy with the MOT is quite invalid, IMO. You could compare, say, a landlord's gas safety check with an MOT, but not an HCR. The HCR is just a report - you don't pass or fail it.

[Doctor Drivel]

I know a few people who bought houses with boilers on their last legs, sludged up, and the rads undersized. After the first winter many 1000s were spent on what they thougt was perfectly good heating system.

Many had also found the shower was a dribble and spent a fortune on larger cylinders and power shower pumps.

We need this HCR.

I don't see that as a problem.

[Doctor Drivel]

AS I said, it should be looked at again. The report must be comprehensive, covering all the item. For example, they could highlight the boiler ~20 years old and inefficient. or that the boiler ~4 years old and an efficient condenser. Simple things that do matter. If I buy the house with the old boiler I may want to drop the price to compensate for bringing the system up to date.

Same with loft insulation. Yes you can have 50mm in then loft and say it is insulated. Very different to 300mm of insulation.

These are points which are nearly always overlooked which matter a year or two down the line. The last thing you want is one year on a bill of £4K.

[Doctor Drivel]

Not so. To discourage the cowboys - like jack of all trades kitchen fitters, who, do some appalling gas/water./electric work, But nice tiling guv. Which it is now doing to a large extent. If you are rewiring the house, approx ~£90 get a Part P check and "anyone" can do the work in any room.

[Doctor Drivel]

There is. Certified Electricians who will test a house and give a certificate saying it conforms to Part P. It is now big business.

I can't account for your cowboy dealings.

It should include all services.

It isn't at all. A certified NCR inpector is the equiv to an MOT tester.

Parts may be failed like electricity and gas which should be included. But any focus points should be brought up: old inefficient gas boiler, poor shower performance, lead water mains, etc.

I knew a girl who bought a house thinking all the electrics were new. A new CU and, socket and switches, The wiring was 55 years old and falling apart. It is cons like this that these reports should bring to the surface. If a rewires is £3K, then a price can be negotiate on the house price, but it must be done before occupation by the new owner.

The NCR is in principle a good idea. Reviewing it is what is needed and then implementing.

[Andy Hall]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:24:48 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote (in article ):

That argument is semantic. A one-size-fits-all survey package is not appropriate for every property. it is quite individual.

A mortgage lender may well specify a set of checks to be made in order to protect his collateral for a loan. That's his affair and of course the buyer pays. The buyer may be happy with that as being sufficient. He is paying for this evaluation and indeed, ultimately for the property.

I would not rely on one of these vendor funded packs because a) I didn't pay for it, b) I didn't specify the work and c) I will make the decisions on the information that I need in order to make an informed purchasing decision.

I neither need nor want the government to have any part in that whatsoever. It is not their business because they are not paying.

Therefore this becomes yet another stealth tax and job creation scheme.

Quite rightly it should be buried.

These are both quite separate issues.

[Andy Wade]

Periodic Inspections are quite big business, yes (mainly in the no-domestic sectors though), but they are checking for compliance with BS 7671, not Part P. Part P itself only contains a vaguely worded requirement for adequate provision to be made for electrical safety - most of it's concerned with what is and isn't notifiable work.

[HCR]

Perhaps, but the fact is that, as proposed, it didn't.

Part P now makes doing that sort of thing illegal (at least in principle). I remain unconvinced that the HCR, as currently conceived, would help in the slightest in "bringing it to the surface."

No-one's going to disagree with that. It's down to the buyer's due diligence in the end - caveat emptor and all that.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, like an MOT tester. Does your do dodgy deals? They cleared up the MOT system as at one time it was joke.

If one house MOT is required covering structure and all services and notes where they are behind to current standards (old inefficient boiler that gobbles fuel, no RCD, for instances), then that is what is required.

The idea is great. They can now give it some more thought and them implement.

Matt, the lunatics here were delighted not wanting one of any sort. Shameful indeed.

[gort]

Have a look on the back of the MOT certificate and notice the line ' It does not mean the the vehicle fully meets all legal requirments or that it will continue to be roadworthy for the next year'.

Dave

[Andy Hall]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:33:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote (in article ):

If I buy a car, I certainly don't rely on the MOT as evidence of condition.

I don't with a house either.

I will make my own assessment, with appropriate professional advice if I choose, and pay for it myself.

Certainly I don't need, want or expect to pay for the government's choices on what it thinks is important among my decision making criteria.