Absolutely a good idea. The fact you can put an 'unsellable' property on the market here is frustrating. There are still some issues to be teased out, like when there are issues with title, but at least they're available for buyers solicitors to see upfront rather than weeks / months down the line.
If this is the key problem intended to be tackled here then that was not at all clear from the IPAV briefing document.
What did you understand the intention was?
I think the principle is a good one.
I understand your cynicism. But just a little challenge. What you are suggesting is that the estate agent should be obliged to ensure that the seller has 'saleable title' before they advertise the property to sell it? Which is what they are trying to legislate for. Or are you suggesting something different here, and that the estate agent themselves take on the responsibility for conveyancing before marketing the property?
Most of them I've met are nether legal nor planning experts, and certainly nowhere near competent enough to assess potential structural issues. It makes perfect sense for all these boxes to be ticked in advance, but without someone competent making these assessments purchasers would be advised to continue to seek independent advice.
Maybe not as much as that. But something along the lines of an estate agent as a regulated entity being obliged to have enough evidence that there are no critical issues that would make a sale impossible. I had a quick look at the legislation and, as drafted, it would put the burden on the vendor to produce a long list of documents at their own expense. I think even a good-faith vendor would struggle to produce what is suggested.
I am not suggesting that they are nor should they be. And I am not so naive as to believe that certain issues will only come to light right at the point of sale as well. My suggestion is that it makes more sense to place the burden directly on the regulated entities and indirectly on the sellers.
It boils down to the seller engaging their solicitor earlier. There is nothing new in the list of documents; they'll all be needed during the conveyancing process.
So the agent should investigate title, judgements, form an opinion on planning and building regulations...?
I don't see any advantage there, just less choice for consumers who would no longer be able to use their own solicitor, engineer, etc., and agents covering the risk through increased fees. Then you also have many people who choose not to use the services of an agent when selling, forcing them to do so would impose an even more significant increase in costs on them.
All I am suggesting is that regulated property industry professionals should have an obligation to satisfy themselves that there is no material impediment to sale.
I understand the suggestion, but for them to do so would require replicating the roles performed by solicitors, surveyors, and engineers today. Either they acquire all the necessary skills (a massive undertaking requiring years of retraining for all agents, or they outsource that assessment to other qualified professionals with the added costs that will entail.
I've bought and sold property and not once had an estate agent perform any form of AML checking.
Not if it drives up costs.
As things stand, a sale could fall through because the seller hasn't sorted X or Y or because of a material issue that standard conveyancing would discover. Something almost any buyer and certainly one looking for a mortgage looks for. This can happen after the potential buyer has incurred outlay on surveys or lost time on bidding for other potential houses.
I’m not sure that it would.