HIP - Home Information Pack

Home sellers will find it cheaper to pay a £200 fine than have to pay up to £600 for a hip.

From August 1st , homeowners of 4 bedroom homes and larger in England and Wales will be legally obliged to supply buyers with the packs, known as HIPs, which will include a certificate that rates a property's energy efficiency.

Packs will also contain details of the lease, local searches and a list of items included in the sale.

In a further change to existing proposals, sellers will only need to have commissioned a pack before they put a property on the market, as opposed to waiting until they have a HIP in place .


For more on this go to, £200 hip fine

Post edited by: moveon, at: 2007/05/23 08:43

I understood that it was £200 per day that the house is marketed. However, if you live in an area where it is easy to sell such as certain areas of London it is not uncommon to sell the house on the day that it is marketed

Tony

admin wrote:

QUOTE:
I understood that it was £200 per day that the house is marketed. However, if you live in an area where it is easy to sell such as certain areas of London it is not uncommon to sell the house on the day that it is marketed

Tony

Hi Tony
Amount of HIP penalty charge .

The amount of a penalty charge specified in a notice given to a person under section 168 of the 2004 Act (penalty charge notices) shall be £200.

Section 168 of the 2004 Housing Act isn’t much clearer, but the second paragraph states: 168 Penalty charge notices(2).

A penalty charge notice may not be given after the end of the period of six months beginning with the day (or in the case of a continuing breach the last day) on which the breach of duty was committed.

This implies that marketing of a property without a HIP or a good excuse would be a continuing breach, therefore the penalty for not having a HIP would be £200.

Chris
Home information pack<br><br>Post edited by: moveon, at: 2007/05/20 20:03

Hi Chris

I see you're still busy mis-informing everyone (or should I say, deliberately courting controversy for clicks to your site), despite having all your arguments battered over at Lycos forums

So, let's see...

Using your own words:

QUOTE:
This implies that marketing of a property without a HIP or a good excuse would be a continuing breach, therefore the penalty for not having a HIP would be �200.

I have made bold the key-phrase that should provide a clue.

Hello Mike

I see you still have problems with the truth..

So here is a nice factual statement enjoy

The Local Authorities Co-ordinator for Regulatory Services (Lacors), which represents town hall trading standards departments, which will be responsible for policing the system, stressed that fines would not be enforced because it would be too costly.

Lacors chairman, councillor Geoffrey Theobald, stressed town halls will not have criminal powers to investigate any possible breaches and will have to chase unpaid fines through the civil courts. He added: ‘We have said from the outset that this is inappropriate as it would cost too much money to make it worthwhile pursuing such cases.

‘This means that there is no real incentive for estate agents or sellers to ensure there is a correct home information pack because the likelihood of proceedings being taken against them is very low.

Chris

Dearest dearest Chris

As usual, you sidestep the issue you, yourself raised, when backed into a corner. You know the truth, but the truth doesn't sit with your aims of stirring controversy in order to drive clicks to your site... linkbait, to give it its name

Continuing breach: The option to impose the same fine for each day the law is broken.

Further, you're actually advising people to put themselves in this position!

Further, you then try and suggest that the powers-that-be will turn a blind eye on the basis of, not fact, but oppinion.

Let me use your own quote:

QUOTE:
‘This means that there is no real incentive for estate agents or sellers to ensure there is a correct home information pack because the likelihood of proceedings being taken against them is very low'

You see; oppinion, not fact.<br><br>Post edited by: SocialMike, at: 2007/06/14 10:41