Comments on: Charges for Property Searches

By: Jordan Canter

Jordan Canter — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:20:32 +0000

Further to Ben’s comment (16) it really is a case of different councils charging what they want to and without regard to the guidelines set in place for them to follow. I have West Dorset council who will happily supply me with information bar highways and building regs fro the £11.00 and a small fee for buildings. I also have Bournemouth Council who I pay the £11.00 for land charges, £1.80 per question and then regardless of the amount of questions I ask plonk a £16.50 collation charge on top! These are unfair charges and need to be looked at!

By: Mark Smith

Mark Smith — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:19:50 +0000

Just to add to Sue’s comments (12 above), it’s also worth being aware that Compulsory Purchase Orders (Question 3.11) are not actually shown in the Local Land Charges Register, because it seems that they are not registerable. This leaves the CON29R as the only source of this information to a purchaser.

People may not be aware of this fact, but this is potentially the most costly area on a search if a claim is made because something has not been revealed on the seller’s search.

By: Ben Oliver

Ben Oliver — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:03:21 +0000

I agree with the posts above stating the problems of how a member of the public has to pay for the collection and storing of data relating to planning permissions etc, and then is charged again when having to inspect this information. It is clearly a dual burden rule that needs addressing.

With regards to good and bad councils. I think the best for us have to be Wakefield, who are always helpful and provide all information for the Con29r for £18. However the worst for us appears to be Bradford council who are charging £96. To say these councils are 15miles apart from each other, it is hard to justify to customers the difference in prices.

By: Steven Milne

Steven Milne — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:16:11 +0000

Regarding the post made by Peter “Why should personal search companies who use the information provided for commercial purposes expect it to be provided free, effectively meaning that their business is being subsidised by council tax payers?”
This information is the tax payers information, me, you and every other person that has contributed to this thread. The reason why there is a charge there is for the person to inspect the records. Most search companies have simply added the council charges to the total HIP cost. Joe public pays for planning permission then he has to pay again to see the planning permission… that is simply wrong!

By: nick snr

nick snr — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:01:52 +0000

In reply to Peter post 10, Good search companies have always obtained what ever information was available. It was a Hip regulation that required the insurance to cover unavailable information. Some councils would not give personal search companies the info, nor would some even sell the information. Due to this and complaints from personal search companies the regulations were changed and obliged local authorities to provide the information. Most chose to charge for it.
As for personal search companies being subsidised, this is not the case. The local authority search is subsidised. The rate payer pays for the council to collect and store the info, The builder, developer, surveyor or architect pays for planning applications and building control work which is to collate the info and make it available for the public. However having already been paid to collect and store the info for the public they then charge to produce it in the form of a local search, Conversely we are not subsidised and have to go to the local authority to find the information, and pay for it, on behalf of the public. We then charge the public for our work and this charge is generally less than the local authority would charge. Until Pali revolutionised the search industry local authorities were charging up to £300 and taking up to twelve weeks to produce a search. If it was lost in the post through no fault of the purchaser they had to pay to have it reproduced. Great service. Due to the competition personal search companies have introduced, local authorities have dragged themselves into the twenty first century. Their service is better, their charges are coming down and their attitude is improving. They still find it difficult to compete with the personal search companies so they put charges and obstacles in the way.
Nick.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:41:03 +0000

We received an ‘Official Search,’ LLC1 & Con29R, back from Ashfield District Council. They have answered questions 3.7 a-f & 3.11 with the response ‘Not so far as known’.

It would therefore appear that Local Authorities can answer in anyway they choose but personal search companies cannot.

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:27:21 +0000

Looking at Hamish’s post (number 8), it looks as though some clarification may he helpful.

The Enforcement and Stop Notice register is available for inspection, as it has always been, but it won’t (and never has done) provide the information needed for 3.9.

Under the HIP Regulations questions 3.1 to 3.13 relate to information not shown on the relevant registers. This relates to notices, orders etc that are not on the registers, including action that may be in the process of being undertaken and therefore not yet on a register. Sometimes this information may be available by looking at committee minutes but not always, for example an authorisation given under powers delegated to an officer.

Currently the only way to access this type of information is by a compiled report.

By: Ian Henry

Ian Henry — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:47:25 +0000

I Have today collected the results of a RAW DATA SEARCH from Gwynedd Council for which I was charged £42.00
This report is supposed to answer all the questions in Con29

Question 3.4 (a-f) was answerd Not so far as is known
Question 3.6 (a-l)was answerd Not so far as is known
Question 3.7 (e)was answerd Not so far as is known

when I asked why we didnt have a yes or no answer i was told they did it to cover themselves and this was the way they answered in an official search

Am missing something here

By: peter

peter — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:29:53 +0000

Why should personal search companies who use the information provided for commercial purposes expect it to be provided free, effectively meaning that their business is being subsidised by council tax payers? And why is there a reference to the information “now” being available inferring that this is something new? Non-public register information has previously been available from most local authorities but personal search companies have, it seems, chosen not to pay for it and have used their insurance cover to justify supplying incomplete search answers to their customers.

By: Jon Coupland

Jon Coupland — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:34:00 +0000

The HM Govt. really have not thought this through, with no standard or recognisable pricing evident from council to council this will only lead to a confused market and it will be the man on the street, the end user who suffers, its just making life difficult for all concerned. It would appear that some of the councils have stuck their finger in the air and plucked out a figure that appears to fit a sum that somebody up the line has dreamt up, much of the info should be freely available with no restrictions on access, the councils are in my opinion abusing the right to hold the information.

I was getting all the required info from Darlington Borough Council free of charge with little fuss, but that all changed a few months ago when I was denied access to the building regulations information, I knew there was a rabbit away, strangely enough now that they have introduced the new pricing they will let me have them, at a cost!

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council are a nightmare, now and historically, even the info they have published as free to access they want to charge for, what’s that all about!!?