OK, let's dive in. We've all heard the stories.
Maybe even live through it, right?
You finally get the keys to your new place.
You're thrilled. Boxes everywhere.
Maybe you've cracked open some bubbly.
And then it happens. Yeah, then you, I don't know,
pull the corner of the carpet or tap a wall and suddenly you find
this nasty surprise A. Hidden crack, damp creeping up
from somewhere, maybe a roof that looked fine but was really
just patched up for the sale. Exactly.
And boom, those repairs? They're your problem now, your
expense, long after you've signed on the dotted line.
It's this this vicious cycle. It really is.
It's that awful moment where the dream, you know, the excitement
of buying a home, just crashes into this very expensive reality
of things not being disclosed. And the sources we're looking at
today from experienced surveyors, they suggest this
isn't just like a few bad apples, it's almost standard
practice. It can feel that way.
It's often part of a strategy, sometimes subtle, sometimes not,
concealed by those who frankly benefit most from a quick,
smooth sail without any awkward questions asked.
Right. So our mission today is to
really dig into the government's latest attempt to tackle this.
They're talking about mandatory upfront information binding
contracts. The goal is to make buying a
home faster, safer and the keyword here more transparent.
But, and this is a big but, we have to look back, don't we?
Oh, absolutely. Yeah, because this rings a bell
for a lot of people. I imagine.
It sounds an awful lot like something we've tried before.
Deja vu indeed. This new plan immediately brings
to mind the well the costly failure of the home information
packs HIPS back in the late 2000s.
Yes, hips. And understanding why HIPS
didn't work is, I think, absolutely crucial if we want to
have any hope of judging whether these new reforms stand a
chance. OK, so refresh our memory.
What were HIPS supposed to achieve?
And you know, where did it all go wrong?
Well, the idea behind HIPS seemed sensible enough.
It was meant to empower buyers. Basically, sellers had to
provide a pack of documents upfront.
Things like energy performance certificates, some basic
property info. Get the information out early,
stop sales collapsing later down the line because of some hidden
issue. Sounds good on paper.
It did. But the execution, huh.
Well, it was messy, to put it mildly.
I seem to remember the biggest complaint was about the actual
quality of the information in those packs, or maybe the lack
of quality. That's exactly it.
The packs were mandatory, sure, but enforcing the quality?
That was the weak link. For many sellers, it just became
another box to tick. They'd go for the cheapest, most
basic assessment they could find.
So not really useful information then.
Often not, and sometimes the packs didn't even turn up until
late in the process, which completely defeated the whole
point of upfront information. Or they contain stuff that was
totally non binding, sometimes irrelevant to the property's
real condition. It just added bureaucracy.
Loads of it without actually creating any real
accountability. Which leads us right to the
heart of the argument that experts, surveyors in
particular, are making. Now they're saying the
fundamental problem isn't really a lack of paperwork.
We can always invent another form, another pack.
Right, you can always mandate another document.
But the real issue is this deep seated culture of concealment
and poor preparedness that seems to run through the whole
process. That's the core issue,
Absolutely. We're not just talking about a
failed regulation here. It's more fundamental.
It's a cultural failure. If the whole system is sort of
built on this old principle of caveat emptor, buyer beware.
Let the buyer figure it out for themselves.
Exactly. Then just forcing sellers to
produce another binder full of papers doesn't actually stop
someone, whether it's the seller or the agent, from say, quickly
filling a crack, slapping some pain over it, and just hoping
Surveyor doesn't spot it until it's too late.
That's a really crucial distinction, isn't it?
It's shifts this from being just a technical regulatory problem,
how do we design the right form, to something much deeper, an
ethical issue, an economic one, tied up with people's interests?
It is. So we're not just talking about
adding more red tape. We're talking about needing
actual structural reforms, things that create real
accountability, that force readiness, that demand honesty
right when a property is listed. That's a much bigger challenge
than just passing a new law, isn't?
It it really is, we have to look at the incentives.
Why does the market currently reward silence or let's be
blunt, strategic half truths? As long as that's the case, any
new documentation requirement, however well meaning, is likely
to be well worked around or just fulfilled minimally.
So we need to dig into how that culture of concealment actually
works on the ground. Where does the evil, as one
source puts it, really hide? Because that's what we're trying
to root out. Precisely.
Let's get into those specifics. OK, so let's shine a light into
those murky corners. When surveyors talk about this
culture of concealment, what are they actually finding?
What's the hard evidence that shows someone actively tried to
hide something rather than just, you know, forgetting to fix it?
Oh the sources are quite detailed on this drawing from
years of experience. It's like forensic work really
looking for signs of intentional cover ups, not just neglect.
So give us some examples. OK, think about damp.
It's not just finding damp, it's finding a freshly painted wall,
maybe using a specific type of paint like an oil based one
right before the house goes on the market.
Why oil based? Because oil based paint can hold
back moisture for longer than standard emulsion, it masks the
problem, stops the tell tale bubbling or peeling just long
enough to get through viewings. Maybe even the initial survey
checks, especially if it's applied strategically.
Like slow down near the floor or behind where big furniture used
to be. OK.
So it's not just a quick refresh, it's a calculated move
to buy time until the deal is done.
Exactly. Or consider cracks.
Surveyors find cracks that have been really carefully filled,
maybe with something that isn't even structural filler, then
sanded perfectly smooth and perhaps even covered with a
special lining paper. Lining paper.
Yeah, some types are designed to stretch slightly to absorb minor
movements without tearing straight away.
Again, it hides the underlying issue, makes it look solid for a
crucial period. Clever in a dishonest way.
What about roofs? You mentioned patching.
Right, it's often not a totally derelict roof.
That would be too obvious. It's more likely a temporary
fix. A few tiles were placed here and
there, maybe some cheap sealant slapped around a chimney,
flashing just enough, as the source says, to pass a casual
glance from the ground or a quick look out of an upstairs
window. The aim is minimal effort for
maximum deception, just enough to get past those early stages.
That's the pattern deception through minimal temporary
concealment. OK, so that explains the how.
But why? Why are these kinds of defects
maybe past damp treatments that failed?
Signs of previous movement, those roof repairs?
Why are they so rarely just mentioned upfront?
Well, you have to look at how the system is set up,
particularly around the state agents.
Their primary goal, legally and commercially, is to get the best
outcome for the seller. Speed and price are key.
And disclosing problems doesn't help with speed or price.
Generally, no. There is this operating
assumption, often correct legally, that they don't have to
disclose anything unless it's blindingly obvious or if the
buyer specifically asks a direct question, and even then the
answers can be cagey. So even if they fixed a damp
issue properly five years ago, put in a whole new damp proof
course with guarantees, they still might not mention it.
Often, yes, because the very mention of damp, even historic
and fixed, can immediately set off alarm bells for a buyer.
It flags the property as potentially problematic.
It introduces doubt. Exactly, there's a strong
belief, A strategic calculation really among many agents and
sellers that admitting any past issues, subsidence history may
be flood risk in the area. Even a major roof overhaul years
ago could quote, jeopardize a sale or lower the price,
sometimes significantly. Because their job is to get the
highest price for the seller. That's their fiduciary duty.
Precisely. And in that very focused
mindset, volunteering potentially negative information
feels counterproductive to that core mission.
Disclosure is seen as a risk, not a responsibility.
OK, the motive is clear. Protect the sale price, avoid
difficult negotiations. But hang on, if the problem is
still there hiding under the paint or the patch, and a decent
surveyor will find it eventually, what's the bigger
risk they're actually running by hiding it?
Doesn't this short term thinking backfire?
Hugely. The risk they run by concealing
significant issues is actually far greater than just getting a
slightly lower offer. They risk the entire transaction
collapsing. Right, the sale falls through.
Exactly. They risk collapse chains,
incredibly angry buyers who've wasted time and money, potential
legal battles after completion if the issue comes to light
then, and most commonly the deal simply fails late in the game.
Talk us through that collapse scenario.
Buyer gets their survey back. It flags 20,000 lbs of urgent
roof repairs that weren't mentioned.
They pull out. What's the real cost then?
It's not just that one failed sale, is it?
Not at all. The ripple effect is enormous.
The buyer who pulls out, they've likely already spent hundreds,
maybe thousands on legal fees, mortgage arrangement fees, the
survey itself, perhaps even booking removals.
They lose all that. And the seller.
The seller is back to square one.
They've lost weeks, maybe months of marketing time and often it
triggers a chain reaction if they were buying somewhere else,
relying on their sale. Their purchase falls through.
And the people they were buying from might lose their onward
purchase and so on down the line.
Whole chains collapse because of 1 undisclosed issue.
The total cost financially, emotionally, time wise across
that entire chain usually dwarfs whatever saving the seller hope
to make by hiding that 20,000 lbs repair in the first place.
So the system by incentivizing non disclosure actually creates
instability and cost. It seems almost parasitic
feeding on these failed transactions that happened
precisely because information was withheld.
That's a strong way to put it. But yes, as the surveyor in the
source material says, the evil is in the details, the things
hidden away behind walls, under floors.
It highlights the real problem is the systemic failure to
disclose known maintenance issues.
It's become normalized, this idea of selling a known problem
onto someone else without telling them.
Which raises a really fundamental question, doesn't
it? If the agent's legal duty to the
seller get the Max price is in direct conflict with the
market's need for stability and transparency, is the current
setup almost structurally unethical when you look at the
bigger picture? That's the core tension, isn't
it? The system as it stands often
rewards silence, which might inflate initial asking prices
but practically guarantees instability later on.
We need a framework where transparency isn't seen as a
weakness, but as the best way to achieve a solid, reliable sale.
Transparency needs to align with the agent's goals, not oppose
them. We should probably just briefly
acknowledge the exception. The sources mentioned cases
where maybe nobody genuinely knows the history.
Yes, absolutely. It's important.
To be fair, not every lack of information is deliberate
concealment. Think about a probate sale, for
example. A nephew selling his late aunt's
house might genuinely have no idea about repairs done 15 years
ago. He might only have visited
occasionally. Or maybe a property that's been
rented out for years or flipped quickly by an investor who never
lived there. Right.
There are situations where genuine ignorance exists, but
let's be realistic. In the majority of sales
involving owner occupiers who've lived there for a reasonable
time, they do know the property's history, it's quirks,
the repairs they've done or put off.
In those cases, the decision not to disclose is usually
strategic. OK, let's switch focus now to
what the government is proposing today.
They're coming forward with these plans, mandatory upfront
info, binding contracts, and they're framing it as the way to
quote and nasty surprises. So the obvious question is, why
can't we just fix this with more rules, more paperwork?
If it's mandatory, surely people have to.
Comply. Well, this brings us right back
to that paradox. Paperwork versus actual
preparedness. We just talked about how the
underlying culture often encourages finding ways around
Full disclosure. So just adding more forms.
Doesn't necessarily change the behavior.
If the culture remains 1 of evasion, then more mandatory
documents risk becoming just that, More documents easily
faked perhaps, or filled out with generic unverified
information. We saw exactly this with HI PS.
There's a real danger these new requirements could just become
HI PS2 point O. Another box ticking exercise.
Pretty much. If the core incentive is still
sell high, say little, then a new form is just another
bureaucratic hurdle to navigate. Maybe the agent recommends a
friendly surveyor who won't look too hard, or they use vague
language. The form gets filled, compliance
is achieved on paper, but has anything really changed?
That's the weakness, isn't it? The sources argue pretty
strongly that what's needed isn't just more forms, but forms
containing genuine, verified information that actually has
some legal standing information someone is accountable for.
Exactly. We need truth embedded in the
process, not just a checklist. Otherwise you could end up with
sellers churning out cheap generic reports just to meet the
requirement without any real substance.
You know, I wonder about the psychological impact of that
too. If you make paperwork mandatory,
but everyone knows it's often low quality or easy to fudge,
doesn't that make things even more confusing for the average
buyer? They might think, oh, it's
mandatory, it must be reliable. That's a real risk.
It can create a false sense of security.
A buyer gets this official looking pack of documents and
thinks, great, they've done their homework.
My risk is lower. But the documents might just be,
you know, copies of old planning permissions that aren't relevant
anymore, or unverified notes about maintenance.
So the buyer relaxes, maybe doesn't scrutinize things as
much. Potentially, and it means the
real check, the buyers own survey, which usually happens
quite late in the day, becomes this incredibly high stakes
moment. It's less a confirmation of
known facts and more like a last minute gamble to uncover hidden
problems. And you can see the effect of
all this missing or unreliable information when you look at the
property market overall, can't you?
The sources point to a real lack of cohesion, a lack of clarity
that seems like proof the market doesn't trust the data it's
working with. Absolutely.
Look at the conflicting signals we often see.
The sources mention this directly.
Some lenders claim activity and prices are rising.
Others say the opposite. Now, some fluctuation is normal,
of course, but when you have such stark contradictions, it
suggests something deeper. It points to different players
in the market, lenders, agents, buyers, sellers, operating on
completely different assumptions about the quality of the assets
being traded and the level of risk involved.
There's no shared trusted baseline.
That level of market uncertainty is quite something.
It's like everyone's trying to navigate using different maps
drawn by people who all want a different destination.
What does that uncertainty link back to the information problem?
Well, uncertainty flourishes in a vacuum of reliable
information, doesn't it? It thrives when transactions
depend more on trust me than on verified facts.
If every buyer implicitly knows, they're taking a punt on the
hidden condition of the property.
That risk has to go somewhere. It either gets priced in
somehow, making things more expensive or volatile, or it
simply puts people off. Risk averse buyers or lenders
might just hesitate, slowing everything down.
This inherent instability shows why just adding another layer of
paperwork isn't enough. The market needs data it can
actually trust, built in from the very beginning.
And truly, this effects financing, too.
If lenders suspect that property histories are often incomplete
or hidden, they have to factor that unknown risk into their
valuations, maybe into mortgage terms they offer.
They absolutely do. That unknown history acts like a
hidden discount or risk premium on almost every property, even
the ones that are well maintained.
Why? Because until that late stage
survey, the lender often can't reliably tell the good from the
bad. So the current system
prioritizing speed over substance ends up creating this
unstable, confusing market where ultimately the buyer carries the
weight of all that unknown history.
That's right, The solution can't just be another binder of
papers. It has to be a system that
delivers verifiable truth. OK, so if just hitting people
with more rules and forms hasn't worked historically and probably
won't work now. If mandatory forms just lead to
grudging compliance, not genuine transparency, then we need that
cultural shift you mentioned moving the market away from
secrecy and last minute reactions towards preparation
and openness. How do we even begin to make
that happen? How do we make transparency the
smart, maybe even profitable choice?
The key I think is to fundamentally change when the
detailed checks happen and who commissions them.
We need to shift the main inspection from being a late
stage reactive thing done by the buyer.
Often when they're already emotionally and financially
invested. Exactly, shift it to being an
early stage proactive step taken by the seller as part of getting
their property ready for market. The source material actually
points to some initiatives already trying this, like the
Survey All Baretti service. It gives us a practical example
of what this preparation might look like.
Right, let's unpack that Baretti idea as an example.
What's involved? How does it actually work and
what makes it different from, say, the old HIV?
The big differences are timing and accountability.
Barity is described as a digital preparation system driven by the
seller before listing. It involves getting a proper
professional health check, basically a survey done on the
property right at the start. Before it even goes on Right
move or Zoopla. Yes, and crucially, it's not
just about getting an opinion, it's about gathering the
essential verified documents. Things like warranties for
recent work, planning permissions, building control
certificates, and importantly, it specifically aims to identify
any existing maintenance or condition issues early.
OK, but hold on. If the seller pays for this
upfront survey and document pack, if they're footing the
bill, what stops them from just getting the report, seeing it
flags an expensive problem, and then burying it or choosing a
surveyor they know will give a gentle report?
That's where the psychological and systemic shift comes in.
By commissioning this detailed assessment upfront, the seller
is making a conscious investment in transparency.
Let's say the report comes back and says, look, the roof needs
15,000 lbs of work. The seller now has a clear
choice based on verified information.
Option A Fix the roof properly before listing and then market
the property as Baretti with proof of the repair, potentially
at a higher price. Option B Don't fix the roof but
disclose the issue clearly, provide the report findings and
price the property competitively to reflect that £15,000 future
cost for the buyer. What they can't easily do is
pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Exactly because the report exists, Ideally it's digitally
logged and linked to the property listing.
Concealment becomes much harder, much riskier.
This is where it gets really interesting I think because it
reframes the whole approach. It moves away from damage
control, finding problems late and fighting about them towards
honesty as a strategy. What are the knock on benefits
if sellers actually do this preparation properly for them
and for buyers? The benefits could be huge and
system wide. For sellers, doing this
preparation means they identify and deal with potential deal
Breakers before they find a buyer.
Fewer nasty surprises popping up in Month 3 means their sale is
much more likely to proceed smoothly to completion.
More certainty for them, less stress maybe helps their onward
chain stay intact. Precisely.
And for buyers, the gain is massive.
They get crucial verified information about the property's
condition right at the start, maybe even before they view it.
They can see the survey summary, the key documents.
It allows them to calculate the true cost of buying that
specific property much earlier. So they can make a more informed
decision faster, maybe with fewer rounds of painful price
renegotiation based on survey findings.
Exactly. The whole full philosophy shifts
transparency, builds trust, and trust leads to more stable,
faster transactions that should benefit everyone involved in the
long run. And this ties back powerfully to
that ethical point about responsible ownership, doesn't
it? If I know I'll have to be
upfront about the state of my property when I sell, I have a
much stronger incentive to actually look after it while I
live. There, that's a key potential
outcome. The sources make a really strong
case for fairness here. Why should sellers, as one puts
it, expect a windfall simply for owning a property that's been
neglected for years? Good question.
If you're selling an asset and you know it has significant
deferred maintenance, maybe the chimney needs repointing, the
wiring is ancient, the drains are dodgy.
The price should honestly reflect that reality.
The market needs to stop implicitly allowing sellers to
profit from their own neglect by passing the buck, often
sneakily, to the next owner. So what sort of maintenance are
we talking about here? What defines responsible
ownership in this context, beyond just, you know, slapping
paint over BAMP patches? What are the big things that
should be assessed and accounted for in this kind of upfront
preparation? It's the core stuff really, the
things that are costly to fix and often hidden from casual
view. The sources list things like the
main roof structure, its condition, it's likely lifespan,
chimneys and their lead flesh and common sources of leaks.
Damp proofing systems, are they present?
Are they working? Windows, especially older double
glazing units where the seals intact.
And critically, the big systems, The electrics, are they modern?
Are they certified? The boiler and heating system,
has it been regularly serviced? Is it efficient?
These are all potentially big ticket repair items down the
line for a buyer. Exactly.
And if they've been ignored by the current owner, they
represent significant hidden liabilities.
Liabilities that under the current system often get
transferred unknowingly to the buyer.
So the cultural shift requires the seller to face these issues
head on. Yes.
Either invest in fixing them before listing to justify a
higher asking price, or be completely transparent about
them, provide the evidence and adjust the price accordingly
before a buyer even gets involved.
It makes the seller responsible for the condition they're
presenting, rather than making the buyer the unwitting
inheritor of past neglect. Right.
So we've established the cultural shift needed from
reaction to preparation. But culture change often needs a
push from structural reform. If we want to move beyond just
hoping sellers do the right thing, what concrete changes are
needed? We need a blueprint really, that
embeds accountability and readiness into the system
itself, not just relying on goodwill.
Absolutely. If we're serious about mandating
better information, we have to be serious about verifying it
and making sure it's actually used effectively throughout the
process. The sources sketch out a pretty
clear framework for this, which we can break down into maybe
three key categories. The first is all about
information quality and verification.
OK, Category 1, making sure the data is actually good.
What did that involve specifically?
Well first and foremost it means mandatory pre sale property
condition assessments. But, and this is crucial, they
must be done by properly qualified independent surveyors,
people who are professionally liable for the accuracy of what
they report. This happens before listing as a
requirement. Yes, a prerequisite for putting
the property on the market, not just an option the seller might
choose. But if the seller commissions
them, how do you guarantee independence?
How do you ensure the surveyor isn't just telling the seller
what they want to hear? That's where the regulatory
structure is vital. The surveyors professional
liability has to extend beyond just the seller who paid them.
It needs to cover the eventual buyer to the report.
Format needs to be standardized, focused on factual evidence, not
just subjective opinion. OK, liability is key.
What else for category one? Secondly, verified digital log
books for properties. Think of it like a secure, maybe
blockchain based digital record linked to the properties
address. A property, passport almost.
Kind of. It would hold the verified
history, copies of warranties for work done, planning
permissions, building control sign offs, maybe major
maintenance records. It creates a single, hard to
falsify source of truth about the building's history.
That sounds powerful. It directly tackles that
concealment issue we talked about earlier.
If major work like damp poofing requires a certificate and that
certificate must go in the log book.
It becomes much harder to hide the history.
It builds an indelible record over time.
Then, linked to that, we need nationwide standardization of
what constitutes material information.
Defining what sellers must disclose, not just what they
feel like mentioning. Exactly a clear, legally defined
set of things a buyer has a right to know upfront.
And finally, in this category that verified data, the summary
from the condition assessment key facts from the log book
needs to be integrated directly into the property listings
themselves. So when you're browsing online,
you see the condition summary alongside the photos and floor
plan. Wow, OK, that really shifts the
survey from being this late stage bombshell into being part
of the property's fundamental identity from day one.
Huge implications for liability and how people value properties,
right? Let's move to category 2,
Professional Accountability and Incentives.
Yeah. This focuses on the key people
managing the transaction, the estate agents, the conveyancers.
We need much stronger enforcement of their
qualifications, yes, but also regulatory oversight that
genuinely holds them accountable for facilitating transparency,
not hindering it. So consequences if an agent is
found to be knowingly marketing a property where defects have
been actively hidden. There has to be.
Alongside that, we need to tackle the incentive structures.
The sources specifically mentioned the need to reduce or
eliminate referral fees between agents and solicitors or
financial advisors. Ah, the kickbacks.
Why are those so problematic for transparency?
Because they create a clear conflict of interest.
Is the agent recommending that particular solicitor because
they're the best, the most diligent, or because that
solicitor pays the agent a fee for every client sent their way?
Right. It incentivizes loyalty to the
refer, not necessarily the client.
Precisely. It encourages speed and volume
over thoroughness. If a solicitor relies on an
agent for business, they might be less inclined to raise
difficult questions about missing paperwork or push hard
for Full disclosure if it risks upsetting the agent or slowing
down the deal. Removing those kickbacks helps
ensure everyone's focused purely on their clients best interest
and the integrity of the transaction.
It's about breaking those financial links that reward
opacity and just getting the deal done quickly regardless of
the details. Yes, and this category also
reinforces the point about encouraging sellers to do that
pre sale maintenance. If a verified condition
assessment is mandatory before listing, sellers have a direct
financial incentive to fix problems before the assessment
happens to get a better report and potentially a better price.
It forces them to confront the state of their asset.
It stops them just quietly passing the cost of their
neglect on to the buyer. OK, final category, Category 3,
system integration and security. How do we make all these pieces,
the verified data, the accountable professionals,
actually work together smoothly and securely?
This is where we really need to modernize the whole transaction
process using technology for security.
We need things like a verified national system for digital ID
checks, making sure everyone involved, buyers, sellers,
agents, is genuinely who they say they are right from the
start. That helps tackle fraud.
Smoother onboarding, less paper chasing for ID.
Exactly. But the integration part is
about breaking down the silos. We need to foster, maybe even
mandate genuine collaboration between the key players,
Surveyors, conveyancers, agents. They should all be working from
the same verified information, the log book data, the condition
assessment right from day one, not.
Operating in separate bubbles where information gets lost or
misinterpreted between steps. Right.
Imagine a secure digital platform where the verified data
is shared instantly and transparently between all the
necessary parties as soon as the seller decides to list
everyone's singing from the same hymn sheet.
OK. So if you have that
collaboration built on verified data right from the start, how
did that connect to the idea of making contracts binding
earlier? It provides the foundation that
could actually make early binding agreements work, unlike
previous attempts. The idea would be to promote
binding agreements only after that verified data pack the
condition report. The logbook info has been shared
and formally accepted by both the buyer and seller.
So the contract isn't just based on the asking price, it's
explicitly tied to the verified condition in history documented
in that upfront pack. Precisely the integrity of the
contract becomes directly linked to the integrity of the
disclosed data. If it later turns out the seller
significantly misrepresented something in that data pack, the
contract could be void and penalties could alley.
This massively reduces the risk of deals collapsing late in the
day over unexpensive survey results because the condition is
known and agreed upon before the contract becomes truly binding.
It fundamentally shifts the transaction from being based on
trust and hope to being based on verified, agreed upon facts.
That's the goal. And that structural change,
linking legal commitment directly to verified data, is
the crucial difference between this kind of proposal and the
old failed HI PS model. It's not just about having a
form, it's about making the information on that form
meaningful, enforceable, and central to the deal itself.
Making the paperwork actually count.
Exactly making it the bedrock of the transactions integrity.
So pulling all this together from our deep dive today, yes,
reforms that demand upfront information are welcome in
principle, but as we've seen, especially learning from the
HIPS fiasco, they absolutely cannot be just another layer of
tick box bureaucracy that gets easily sidestepped.
No, they have to go deeper. They need to fundamentally
change the ingrained habits, the incentives that currently favor
concealment over transparency. The system needs more than just
new rules on paper. It needs, as the source of
stress, enforced accountability, readiness and honesty.
And that seems to rely heavily on verified digital information
and real collaboration between everyone involved.
And until that cultural and structural shift really happens,
well, surveyors are going to keep finding those nasty
surprises that should have been declared right from the start.
Which leaves us with a really important question for you, the
listener, to think about after this discussion.
Yes. Consider this if we actually
succeed in making accountability for property condition mandatory
before listing, if sellers truly have to either fix major issues
upfront or clearly disclose them and accept a lower price
reflecting those costs, how would that fundamentally change
the way we value houses? Would it shift the perceived
intrinsic value of properties across the entire market?
Think about it. Would it mean that significant
wealth, currently represented by the hidden cost of deferred
maintenance, gets shifted away from future buyers, unknowingly
absorb it now and back onto the current owners, forcing them to
account for the true state of their asset?
What are the massive economic consequences if the housing
market genuinely operated on principles of fairness and
mandated transparency? Who wins and who loses when
years of neglect can no longer be quietly passed on?
The whole dynamic changes, doesn't it?
When you move from buyer beware to seller must verifiably
declare. It's a huge potential shift in
economics and responsibility. Definitely something worth
mulling over.