header-logo header-logo

06 September 2007
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

HIP extension attacked

In brief

The government’s decision to extend the mandatory use of home information packs (HIPs) and energy performance certificates (EPCs) from next week has been branded “highly irresponsible” by the Law Society.
The society says the government should have conducted a thorough review of the first phase of HIPs and EPCs before extending the scheme to smaller properties. The attack follows the announcement that HIPs and EPCs will be rolled out to three bedroom properties from 10 September.

Paul Marsh, Law Society vice president, says: “We are deeply disappointed that the government is continuing its cavalier approach to HIPs and the home buying process.

“The government needs to wait to ensure that the first tranche of HIPs has operated successfully before considering rolling it out to smaller properties, rather than rushing ahead prematurely. October would be a more acceptable earliest date for the introduction of HIPs, so that in September a full review of the introduction of HIPs could take place.”

The government, he says, appears to be bowing to pressure from those with a primary financial interest in the HIPs market, while there has been no formal communication to established stakeholders such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the National Association of Estate Agents, and the Law Society.

Issue: 7287 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll