New Home Information Pack questionnaire "confusing"

Tuesday, 07, Apr 2009 04:52

A leading conveyancing firm has said the new PIQ questionnaire, compulsory in the Home Information Pack (Hip), is confusing for sellers.

Friday's Property Lawyers have commented on the changes brought in yesterday, saying the Property Information Questionnaire (PIQ) can be interpreted in a number of different ways by the seller, saying "the devil is most certainly in the detail".

The firm have set out a number of examples regarding why and how the PIQ could be interpreted wrongly by sellers, which could lead to them unintentionally misleading buyers:

Example 1

Do you have a right of access through the neighbouring home's building or land?

Friday's says: You may incorrectly assume you have access. Say, for example, you have a flat in a converted house where the garden is split between two flat owners. If your flat is at the rear, you may well in practice have access over a pathway to get to your part of the garden.

In the case of a house, it may well be that you practice your access over a pathway on neighbour's property in order to get to the road at the rear. In answering the question, 'Does the property have a right of access through any neighbouring homes?' you will probably state "Yes".

In fact your answer may be wrong.

Many people would read the question based on what happens in practice. They may not necessary understand whether they have a 'right'. The right is referring here to a 'legal right'.

Can most people answer definitively that they have legal right? Most people do not have their deeds or lease easily to hand let alone understand the verbose legal jargon contained within such documents. It may well be that in most cases the 'right' matches what happens in practice.

The fact, however, remains that many people will instinctively answer the question based on what happens on the ground as opposed to what deeds state.

Example 2

Are you aware of any flooding are your property since you have owned the property or before?

Friday's says: If you are not aware of any flooding you would surely put "no". You have lived at the property for ten years and therefore you know that there has not been any flooding at the property. Presumably, you should answer the question "No".

Again, this could be wrong. The question does not simply ask you whether or not the property has been flooded in respect of your period of ownership, but also prior ownership.

How can you possibly be expected to know whether or not the property was flooded prior to your ownership?

One of the options on the questionnaire here is "don't know" but by virtue of answering this way you are potentially alienating buyers who think you have something to hide. They may be thinking "how can the seller not know if there has been a flood at the property?".

The correct answer, in a situation where there has not been any during your ownership is "no" for your period of ownership and "don't know" as to what happened prior to your ownership. Unfortunately, the Property Information Questionnaire does not list this as an option!

Example 3

Does the lease prevent you from keeping pets?

You have a dog at the property, your neighbour has a cat, the flat below has a parrot... of course you think you are allowed to keep pets.

Furthermore, if the freeholder is owned by the tenants and some of the tenants have pets (you may even be a director of the freehold company), surely this time you know the answer, of course the answer is "no" right?. Well once again you may be wrong.

The fact is the question is asking about what the lease provides not what happens in practice. The lease may well specifically prevent pets being allowed in the building or possibly prevent pets in certain circumstances (i.e. not without the landlord's consent). In the circumstance, regardless of what happens in practice, the correct answer could be "Yes".

The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) has welcomed the Conservative party's green paper today, which proposed scrapping the Hip.

Peter Bolton King, chief executive of the NAEA, said: "The NAEA has long called for Hips to be abolished and I am personally pleased that Mr Shapps has taken on board our point of view - a point of view shared by the vast majority of property professionals and, we believe, the vast majority of consumers.

"In our opinion Hips became untenable once the government's own statistics revealed that 77 per cent of house-buyers paid no attention to them, and I would now call on Alistair Darling also to commit to scrapping them in this month's Budget."

Mr King's colleague, Richard Hair, past president of the NAEA, said the PIQ's were often made redundant by the fact many buyers wouldn't see them until a purchase had been agreed.

He said: "The issue is that we don't actually believe that there is any real benefit of having them there at all. A lot of these questions are asked already anyway.

"One of the questions is 'Have you got double glazing?- yes, no or maybe?!'

"There was a point that the seller can get themselves into trouble if they fill in the form incorrectly, and in reality they can be taken to court if this happens."

Mr Hair added the new PIQ did not require a signature from the seller, which questioned its documental worth.

For an example of the PIQ visit An example Property Information Questionnaire (PIQ).

Sarah Garrod