Home Improvement Packs

"We trusted the Government, especially when we saw it had invested more than £4m in advertisements for the scheme. Our savings are gone and we are terrified about the prospect of Gordon Brown and his new team not committing to home improvement packs."


Michael Lawson, Chief Executive Si Reports, a company set up specifically to produce home improvement packs (HIPs) and energy performance certificates and likely to lose nearly £1m worth of investment because of the delay.

Trust... in government

What a novel idea

And £4m, indeed. Such an insignificant sum. Only a few millions. This government wastes £100s of millions and then wastes some more £100s of millions on allegedly ill-thought out schemes. Unaccountable waste.

You may even imagine Blair a disaster, but wait and see what's coming over the horizon. Almost a year ago, major objections began appearing. Another 'Kelly'? Like 'doing a Gordon'. Got a certain - ring to it. These ministers seem to go a long way out of their way to find issues to cause an BIG irritation (aka the very uncomfortably rectal p.i.t.a.). They do little else except cause bigger problems than they could ever hope to solve.

In complete naïvety, I suppose I could be forgiven (just) for assuming that the top influential individuals (top of what I couldn't say) should be able to do what they are challenged to do. They are certainly challenged.

How do these people ever get these jobs? More importantly, how do they keep them?

Letter from Which? to Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP

18 July 2006

Dear Secretary of State

Re: Home Information Packs

I am writing to express our disappointment with your decision to withdraw the Home Condition Report from HIPs and our intention to no longer support their introduction.

The Home Condition Report was an essential part of the HIP. It seems extraordinary that the first major decision by your new Department is to reduce the consumer benefits of a flagship policy because you have come under pressure from the industry, including estate agents.

Which? has worked with your Department and the industry to ensure that the implementation of HIPs would be a success and we viewed the proposed pilots as key to ironing out any problems. Clearly your concern over misinformed headlines has led you to conclude that other interests should dominate.

This half-baked compromise will result in something that is of little value but of real expense to consumers and Which? cannot therefore continue to provide support. For interest, estate agents are the second least trusted profession after politicians. After this u-turn, it is perhaps not surprising.

Which? will continue to argue strongly for home buying reforms particularly the creation of proper redress mechanisms for consumers.
Yours sincerely,

Nick Stace
Director of Campaigns and Communications

The letter is instructive, though the answer would be much more interesting, but...

...I wonder if letters such as these ever get read by the addressee or only by the rest of us who cannot influence the outcome. Simple consumers.

The whole issue of HIPS is rather mysterious. Unless you are aware of the concerns as someone who deals in their preparation or has entered into the buying/selling of a house. The suggestion is that a single package is prepared and then copies are sent to potential buyers. The original incurs the charge, but what is the cost of the copy? Or is each copy another original and charged accordingly? A statement only implies that a package must be available, presumably for scrutiny by the potential buyer and stays at the property. Only one of all the potential buyers can purchase the property so:

How does the HIPS procedure actually work? Information is patently lacking that answers this fundamental point. Perhaps it's deemed too obvious to need clarification.

The Kraken Wakes

but still cannot see anything