In the Community

These requirements are supported by THIRTY-FOUR pages of guidance notes on sales and TWENTY-SIX pages of guidance notes on lettings. Commentary in the guidance notes on Part C is of particular interest to bewildered estate agents : "Part C information may or may not need to be established depending on whether the property is affected or impacted by the issue in question. This section applies to properties affected by the issue itself, for example, because of the location of the property. We acknowledge that property agents are not experts in the fields below and are generally not qualified to interpret title deeds and associated contracts or to make judgements on building safety. Where a matter in this section is identified and further information is required, we recommend that property owners/sellers and agents seek the services of qualified professionals (including, where relevant, a surveyor or conveyancer) to assist with the interpretation of the matter identified. This includes: ■ Building safety ■ Restrictions and rights ■ Flood and erosion risk ■ Planning permission and proposals for development ■ Property accessibility and adaptations ■ Coalfield or mining area This list is not exhaustive, and property agents should disclose any information which is material information. " NTSELA has, to quote the vernacular, thrown a gigantic spanner into the works of what has hitherto been a well-defined and respected legal process. What's worse the design of the spanner has been copied from countries like Norway, where estate agents deal with most of the legal work! The guidance notes will be dissected in the weeks to come, and no doubt estate agents will be reviewing their professional indemnity insurance arrangements to cover a significantly increased exposure to future negligence claims. Meanwhile, the public will be wondering why NTSELA has interfered in the conveyancing process in effect by the back door, without full consultation with the vast majority of mainstream property lawyers. These changes are not in the public interest and will expose the public to increased costs and risk for no good reason.

Better make sure the ol' disclaimer is up to date.

Be the first to comment

Were does this leave the license? Is it going Ahead, frozen, cancelled what? This is like Robin Hood Energy, which is council owned and run and again mismanaged

Be the first to comment

Great information!!

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

roof repairs ipswitch

Be the first to comment

2.8 million new instructions- who wants some? While preparing a submission for the at the time unannounced CLG inquiry in PRS (CLG only told their friends) I did some number crunching in the hope of adding a positive input into a department that is seemingly bereft of any experience of the Private rented sector and almost allergic to anyone who has. I identified that a 100,000 tenancy provision by private landlords into the assisted tenancy market (pensions and benefits) was worth approaching £1 billion to landlords. One hundred thousand tenancies was a deliberately small percentage ; an easy , appropriately sized sample to make the point rather than a scientifically calculated figure. It represented about 1.4% of the middle ground between PRS and social housing that many agencies and landlords steer clear of. Subsequent research (discussion) shows that about 40% of assisted tenants are no worse at paying their rent than anyone else. Essentially what that means is that there is an additional £28 billion rental opportunity for those prepared to engage the sector. Increasing the PRS provision by up to by 70% is surely a good start in solving the housing crisis. It will obviously put a large rental income in the pocket of those who can afford to buy to rent out, it will put a large commission income in the pockets of those servicing the industry but moreover it will add the incentive to have another 2.8 million private rented sector properties available to ease the housing crisis. Obviously that will leave the remaining 60% of the sector to house but it seems reasonable that government doesn’t attempt to privatise their entire housing obligation, such schemes tend to lead to civil unrest. There will be natural envy at the rich seemingly exploiting the poor, I am not getting into the social ethics of a solution, simply suggesting how a set of government departments could set about solving issues in an industry they don’t properly understand.