HIPs Claim Another Casualty

Posted on 4 August 2007 by Ray Boulger

Be the first to comment

Last weekend the Sunday Telegraph said that Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) are flawed because assessors gave different results on the same property. They booked two officially accredited assessors to evaluate the same Suffolk property the previous week. Each charged £117.50 including VAT for a 35-minute inspection.

The paper reported that not only were their estimates of energy use in the house markedly different, potentially adversely affecting the sale price, but both inspectors overlooked crucial and clearly defined energy saving additions which have been made.

To the owner's dismay, both reports accused him of using 75 per cent more energy than he estimates to be the case. Having studied their reports he commented "These guys seem to be little more than box-tickers. And unfortunately they haven't even managed to tick the right boxes."

Obviously stung by this criticism, a spokesman for Communities and Local Government rushed out a response the following day: "EPCs are a comprehensive assessment of the energy efficiency of a home, with standards set by industry experts and endorsed by environmental groups. All EPCs are carried out by trained and accredited assessors. The quality of assessments will also be fully monitored by each accredited scheme to ensure standards are met and customers unhappy with an assessment will be able to challenge the result."

So that’s all right then - a bland statement but absolutely no attempt at all to explain why these two EPCs had proved to be so inaccurate.

When challenged on the accuracy of his survey one of the EPC assessors said: "If you were going to rent a property I think you'd look at two certificates and ask which was the best house. But our assessment is supposed to be a purely visual one. We are not obliged to be thorough." What an appalling admission. Let me repeat that – “we are not obliged to be thorough!!”

The other inspector said: "If the owner of the property had been able to show me what sort of modifications had been made to the property, I could have included that information in my report.” So he can only provide an accurate report by relying on information from the owner. Recording what the owner says rather than coming to a conclusion by carrying out the appropriate inspection doesn’t sound to me a very robust way of doing a report.

As a result of the various Government U-turns on the flawed HIP project millions of pounds have already been written off by companies such as Rightmove, who decided to cut their losses on HIPs last year when Home Condition Reports ceased to be a mandatory requirement. Then on the day HIPs officially launched, 1 Aug, HIPs claimed their latest casualty. First Sellers Pack came a cropper as a result of deciding to collaborate with the Government in the provision of HIPs and announced that they had gone into administration, although at the time of writing on the morning of 4 August there is nothing on their web site to indicate they are in administration, which seems rather naughty. Before branching out into HIPs this company appears to have been a perfectly sound business, despite only giving potential customers a premium rate 0870 number to call them on.

If a private sector company had made as big a mess of launching a new product as the Government has made of launching HIPs the Director responsible would have paid with their job. Government works the opposite way. Housing Minister Yvette Cooper, responsible for much of the mismanagement of the launch of HIPs, not only retained her position as Housing Minister in Gordon Brown’s Government but her job was enhanced to a Cabinet-level position. She reportedly threatened to resign if HIPs were shelved, and after all she is Ed Ball’s wife.

 

Categories: Property market, House and home, HIPs

• Save to del.icio.us
• Digg this story