This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks
It seems that in spite of warm words from the Government in recent months on the "successful and smooth" introduction of Home Information Packs news from the ground is somewhat different. Last week's article by my colleague Michael Willoughby in Building, and just as importantly the attendant reader reaction, gives the profession perspective, whilst an excellent piece in this month's Which magazine gives the consumer viewpoint. Both are pretty dreadful.
Michael's Building piece claims that earnings for energy assessors are less than 10K and the piece inspires emotional responses from readers, many assessors themselves. "I feel that the government and the training providers have lead us all down the garden path ,we have been kept on a piece of string with empty promises of earning a decent living and look at it now," says David Ray.
The Which article, which is not printed in full online, attempts to pain a picture on the ground on how Hips are actually working, or not. It investigates the costs, whether they are actually being offered when a transaction takes place and the respective qualities of those that were there. Could do a lot better on all counts, the magazine found. On costs the investigation found a estimates ranging from £234 to £529 and on the EPC part of Hips it found consumers sceptical about their accuracy. The report quotes disgruntled customers and the Law Society, which I presume is not an organisation in the habit of overstating things, which describes Hips to be "the worst piece of consumer legislation in 50 years".
So we appear to have the worst of all worlds. The professionals are seriously out of pocket having claimed to be oversold on the benefits of Hips, while the consumers reckon they are being ripped off for a pretty flimsy product. It's difficult to know whether such a chaotic picture will be replicated for the introduction of energy performance certificates at the end of this week, but it hardly bodes well, does it?
Comments