Jan 13
Posted: under Home Information Packs.
Tags: Hip, Hips, No Sale No FeeJanuary 13th, 2010
No Sale No Fee HIPs – Free HIP if your Home Does Not Sell Within 9 Months
No Sale No Fee Home Information Packs are now available from Pali via Hipview.
Pali have been offering a deferred payment option now on Home Information Packs ordered through Hipview for over 12 months. You can now add an insurance [...] [...more]
No Sale No Fee HIPs – Free HIP if your Home Does Not Sell Within 9 Months
No Sale No Fee Home Information Packs are now available from Pali via Hipview.
Pali have been offering a deferred payment option now on Home Information Packs ordered through Hipview for over 12 months. You can now add an insurance policy to the deferred payment solution meaning that should the property remain on the market in excess of 9 months the HIP won’t cost a penny.
If you or your client choose the No Sale No Fee option when ordering the Home Information Pack the only initial cost will be £30. If the property sells within 9 months the HIP is payable on completion, but if it remains on the market for longer than nine months then any direct costs incurred for the HIP can be claimed back and what’s more, the HIP should still be valid.
For more information please telephone 0151 691 1170 or email nick@paliltd.com
Terms and Conditions:
There are some key conditions to the policy which should noted:
• The HIP Provider/ Estate Agent must note any recommendation to alter the sale price of the property made by the Estate Agent and Seller
• The Seller must comply with any advice given by the Estate Agent to reduce the price of the property and may not reject two or more offers within 90% of the asking price
• The HIP Provider/Estate Agent must note the rejection of any offer made on the property
• The property must be continually marketed during the period of insurance
• The property must be kept in a good state of repair
• The Property is a single private residential house or flat which is build complete at the order date.
• The Home Information Pack for which this cover is required has been produced in accordance with the relevant Home Information Pack Regulations.
• The Seller is not aware of any matter which could lead to a claim under the Policy.
A full set of Terms and Conditions will be provided with the Insurance Guarantee and are also available on request, or by clicking here.
For more information please contact your local Pali office or email: nick@paliltd.com or telephone 0151 691 1170 or visit our webpage.
Jan 12
Posted: under Local Authority, Personal Searches.
Tags: Local Authority Searches, PCCB, Personal SearchesJanuary 12th, 2010
In 2009 allegations were made of malpractice within the Personal Search Industry. The allegations were mainly made by opponents of the industry and were that the reports prepared by Personal Search Companies were inferior in quality to council searches and more widespread concern that certain firms were knowingly not buying all the required data or [...] [...more]

In 2009 allegations were made of malpractice within the Personal Search Industry. The allegations were mainly made by opponents of the industry and were that the reports prepared by Personal Search Companies were inferior in quality to council searches and more widespread concern that certain firms were knowingly not buying all the required data or failing to access legitimate sources of information. In October, November and December 2009 the PCCB (Property Codes Compliance Board) carried out thorough investigations of its Code Subscribers with regards to these allegations.
Frank Finch of the PCCB today made the following statement:
‘In summary, the enquiry found no evidence to support the allegation of widespread non-compliance. Rather it confirmed that the searches sampled were substantially compliant with the relevant regulations and with the Search Code.’
A total of 58 searches, comprising 900 questions were scrutinised, with errors being found in just 3% of answers and none of these related to the substantive allegations that data was either missing or inappropriate data was being used.
Finch went on to comment on the errors by saying that they
‘Appear to result from a lack of diligence rather than deliberate attempts to short-circuit the provisions in the Code. This is borne out by the fact that these failings featured in searches conducted by both personal search firms and local authorities in roughly equal measure.’
In fact, over half of all errors or omissions identified in the exercise related to local authority reports.
This goes to prove that Council Searches are no more reliable than those provided by firms who subscribe to the Search Code.