They won't pack them in but HIPs are full of holes

Little more than three weeks remain until the controversial home information pack (HIP) becomes law in England and Wales. If you have a slight feeling of déjà vu, it's because you have read this before.

The original "go live" date of the £300 sellers' packs was 1 June, but in a last- minute U-turn the then Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, announced that they would be postponed until 1 August.

Ms Kelly also said, controversially, that HIPs would apply at first only to homes with more than three bedrooms - amounting to just 17 per cent of all owner- occupied properties, according to estimates from the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML). For smaller homes, there would be a "phased" implementation, though no timeframe has yet been confirmed.

The growing band of HIP critics had hoped that a new Prime Minister and Cabinet reshuffle would put a stop to the packs before 1 August. But last week it was confirmed that Yvette Cooper (pictured) will continue in her role as minister for housing and planning, implying that the packs are going full steam ahead under Gordon Brown.

However, having been pulled from pillar to post in the 10 years since they were first proposed, HIPs are battered and bruised and contain, say opponents, several loopholes that consumers are likely to exploit.

For example, contrary to the original plan, vendors can now market their home for sale without a HIP - as long as they have applied for one. As the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) points out, that means they can cancel the order if the property is sold before the pack arrives.

Rics spokesman Jeremy Leaf says: "Unless the Government can show us the regulation that says a property cannot be sold without a HIP, consumers and industry will be left to draw their own conclusions. This will lead to two groups of consumers: those who pay for a HIP and those who legally get round the rules."

A government spokes- man rubbishes this claim: "Under the HIPs legislation, sellers will either have to pay or commit to pay for the pack, like any other bill or contract."

But anti-pack campaign group Splinta is convinced this will not be the case. "There are over 180 pack providers, all in competition," says spokesman Nick Salmon. "If you ordered a pack and called again the next day to cancel it, they would do so."

Watch out, though: from January, sellers will be required to have a pack before they can even market their home.

A separate loophole is what constitutes a four-bed home. A survey from finan- cial products provider Saga, published last week, revealed that three-quarters of respondents with that many bedrooms would be tempted to market their homes as comprising "three bedrooms and a study", to avoid the cost of a HIP.

"There is nothing to stop estate agents from doing this," says Peter Bolton King, chief executive of the National Association of Estate Agents. "If you use it as a study, nobody can dictate that you have to call it a bedroom."

The Government, though, believes sellers won't want to market their home with fewer bedrooms as the ploy could end up devaluing the property and costing them far more than the £300 needed to compile a sellers' pack. National average prices reveal a £121,000 disparity between three- and four-bed homes.

Also hanging in the air is how a seller will define the "advertising" of a home. HIPs are mandatory only for properties that are marketed - not sold. So if you decide to sell to a relative, for example, you can also sidestep the requirement legitimately.

Meanwhile, certain types of property - such as those with leases of fewer than 21 years, holiday properties and flats above shops - are exempt from HIPs.

Aside from all this, what are the consequences for a seller who simply refuses to buy a HIP?

Trading Standards, which will be responsible for policing HIPs, can impose a flat £200 charge on the person responsible for knowingly avoiding a pack - whether this is an agent, householder or both. This £200 charge can then be repeated for continuing offences.

"It's unlikely estate agents will want to take this road as they will be reported to the Office of Fair Trading, which in turn can shut them down," says a Trading Standards spokesman.

How rigorous the policing will be, though, is questionable. Trading Standards says it has no extra staff or funding to take on HIPs, and that each case will be looked at according to the priorities of each local council.