APPENDIX 1: WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Letter from Mark McLaren, Public Affairs, Which
?
We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on
the Home Information Pack (HIP) regulations as summarised in your
e-mail. Given the very short timescale ... I hope that this brief
letter will suffice for our response for Committee members. I
am content for this response to be published if appropriate.
Though we were involved with DCLG in developing their
HIPs policy, we withdrew that support as a result of the July
2006 Government announcement that Home Condition Reports (HCR)
will not be a mandatory part of HIPs. Since then, we have not
taken an active role, as outlined in the attached letter dated
18 July 2006 to Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP, DCLG Secretary of State
... We have thus not made detailed comments on the draft regulations
issued since then.
We now await the results of the pilot studies commissioned
by the DCLG to see whether partial HIPs with voluntary HCRs will
work as the Government hope. Which? remains of the view that a
mandatory HCR is an essential component of a HIP and that its
absence may render the pack an expensive waste of time for consumers.
Which? does however remain committed to reforming
the house buying and selling process for the benefit of consumers;
for example we are currently working closely with MPs and Peers
on the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress bill currently before
Parliament.
Among other measures, this bill will require estate
agents to belong to an OFT approved complaints scheme and keep
better records. However we are also promoting an amendment, not
currently supported by Government, to establish a low cost positive
licensing scheme for estate agents. This would allow the OFT to
monitor and enforce the proposed legislation.
17 April 2007
Letter from Nick Stace, Director of Campaigns
and Communications, Which ?, to Rt Hon. Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government
I am writing to express our disappointment with your
decision to withdraw the Home Condition Report from HIPS and our
intention to no longer support their introduction.
The Home Condition Report was an essential part of
the HIP. It seems extraordinary that the first major decision
by your new Department is to reduce the consumer benefits of a
flagship policy because you have come under pressure from the
industry, including estate agents.
Which? has worked with your Department and the industry
to ensure that the implementation of HIPS would be a success and
we viewed the proposed pilots as key to ironing out any problems.
Clearly your concern over misinformed headlines has led you to
conclude that other interests should dominate.
This half-baked compromise will result in something
that is of little value but of real expense to consumers and Which?
cannot therefore continue to provide support. For interest, estate
agents are the second least trusted profession after politicians.
After this U-turn, it is perhaps not surprising.
Which? will continue to argue strongly for home buying
reforms particularly the creation of proper redress mechanisms
for consumers.
18 July 2006
Letter from Paul Marsh, Law Society Deputy Vice-President
and member of the Law Society HIPs Taskforce
We do not consider that the Home Information Packs
Regulations 2007 serve in any way the government's aim of making
the home buying process easier and more transparent. They will,
in fact, make the process more difficult, much more expensive
and remove existing transparency from the market place. The government
has refused on numerous occasions to take any account of the concerns
expressed by the Law Society about HIPs.
The whole idea of a mandatory HCR was misconceived
from the beginning. By removing the mandatory HCR in the way it
did, the government has undermined the whole concept of the HIP.
There is no evidence that EPC's will reduce carbon
emissions from homes. If they do they should be supported. It
is wholly inappropriate to link EPC's to HIPs. There were several
methods by which EPC;s could have been promoted in a far more
cost effective and efficient manner. The government has persistently
refused to listen to reasoned and informed argument from major
stakeholder in the industry on this issue.
18 April 2007
Letter from Peter Bolton King FNAEA FRICS, Chief
Executive, National Association of Estate Agents
The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA)
is the UK's leading professional body for estate agency personnel,
representing the interests of approximately 10,000 members who
practice across all aspects of property services both in the UK
and overseas. These include residential and commercial sales and
lettings, property management, business transfer and auctioneering.
The National Association of Estate Agents is dedicated
to the goal of professionalism within high street estate agency.
Its aim is to reassure the general public that by appointing an
NAEA member to represent them they will receive in return the
highest level of integrity and service in both sales and lettings.
Each NAEA member is bound by a vigorously enforced Code of Practice
and adheres to professional Rules of Conduct. Failure to do so
can result in heavy financial penalties and possible expulsion
from the Association.
The National Association of Estate Agents welcomes
the fact that the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits
of Statutory Instruments is to debate the Home Information Pack
Regulations.
We are grateful for the opportunity to make comment
and have set out below brief answers to the questions sent to
us. As time is of the essence these are not written in great detail.
If further elaboration is required then please let us know.
The Home Information Pack Regulations 2007 revoke
and replace the Home Information Pack Regulations 2006 (of June
2006). We understand that you took part in the HIP Components
Project Board which DCLG consulted in preparing the 2006 Regulations.
Did you consider that the 2006 Regulations effectively served
the Government's aim of making the home-buying process easier
and more transparent?
The NAEA did sit on the HIP Components Project Board
and has made numerous written submissions and briefing documents
throughout the legislative process. We have consistently stated
that the Government's, and our, desire to improve the Home Buying
and Selling Process will not be improved by the introduction of
HIPs. As we have mentioned to the Minister, more than once, if
HIPs were really going to achieve this, thus reducing our members'
costs and increase their profits, members would have been 100%
in favour of them. Instead the vast majority believe that this
is an added cost to the process which will adversely affect the
market.
One of the Government's aims is to speed up the process.
If one considers the limited documents that are now included in
the HIP it is very unlikely that there will be any gain in time
other than perhaps the availability of Leasehold information.
This particular information is difficult and increasingly costly
to obtain, a fact recognised by the CLG who have now agreed that
it does not need to be available at the point of marketing. A
similar decision has been reached in respect of local searches
given the ongoing difficulty in also obtaining them. The NAEA
has constantly mentioned these two problems and remains very concerned
about the potential cost implications in respect of the leasehold
documentation. We already hear of Management Companies asking
for considerable sums when requested for a quicker service.
The Regulations now say, that on Marketing a property,
the only documents required are the Title extract, Index, Sellers
Form and the Energy Performance Certificate. In our opinion these
documents will do little to achieve the Government's second aim
of providing upfront information enabling the potential purchaser
to make a more informed decision. We believe that almost no sales
are lost as a result of the local search and few affected by the
title documents. In any case insurance is available for defective
title.
With no required legal summary, it is unlikely that
potential purchasers will in any case be able to make much of
the information provided.
In Scotland, as part of the trial for the Purchaser's
Information Pack, the Association is helping the Scottish Executive
pilot a "Sellers Questionnaire". This document will
potentially provide the majority of the information about a property
that will be of interest to a potential purchaser. This type of
document should have been considered for England and Wales without
the need for searches and title information.
The NAEA supports the principle of Energy Performance
Certificates but does not feel they need to be part of the HIP
but should be provided before an exchange of contracts. Our general
feeling is that they will not, in the vast majority of cases,
influence the buyer and we cannot see why this information is
required on marketing. The EU Directive refers to the "sale
or letting of property" and not the marketing.
In summary, if one looks at other systems around
the world, there are many other ways of improving the home buying
process but HIPs will not achieve this. In addition we cannot
see how it is really going to make the process more transparent.
Interestingly the base line research in respect of HIPs appears
to show that 79% of those asked were satisfied with the current
process.
We are also still convinced that HIPs will actually
have an adverse affect on the market. Our independent research
indicates that a significant number of potential sellers will
think twice before marketing their property if they have to consider
paying for a HIP on withdrawal. This was especially so in areas
of the country with lower savings. The net result would be a reduction
in supply, which is already very tight in some areas, causing
continuing price rises. This is not healthy and could lead to
unnecessary additional interest rate rises. This is turn would
not only harm the housing market but also the whole economy.
In July 2006, DCLG announced that Home Condition
Reports would not after all be a mandatory element of HIPs. This
is one of the main changes made by the 2007 Regulations. In the
light of these changes, how effective do you think that HIPs will
be in delivering the same aim?
There is a big argument that says that the only part
of the HIP that might have been of use to the Buyer was the Home
Condition Report. The Government argues that a considerable number
of sales currently fail because of bad surveys. The baseline research
says that only 3% of sellers encountered a bad survey. It also
states that 20% of the 253 summary forms returned indicated a
sale falling through because of a bad survey. However table 3
of the research says that only 114 summary forms were returned,
indicating a small and probably insignificant sample. Unfortunately
the reason for the sale failure is not tabulated nor do we know
how many of these properties, where a transaction failed due to
survey, went on to successfully complete with another buyer.
The Association has consistently stated that in our
experience, in many cases where a survey shows up a defect, the
purchase price is re-negotiated to take this into account and
the sale does not collapse.
Clearly whatever one thinks about the whole concept
of HIPs, without the HCR they are of very limited use, as discussed
above.
The Government believe there will be a good take
up of HCRs voluntarily. We believe that is unlikely that more
than a small number of people will pay for something they do not
need.
The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates
and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 contain
requirements for Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) which
will have to be included in HIPs for residential properties put
on the market. DCLG have said that EPCs will serve the aim of
helping to reduce carbon emissions from homes, and that an updated
EPC will have to be produced every time a residential property
is marketed with an HIP. How effective do you think EPCs will
be in meeting this aim? Do you consider that it is appropriate
to link EPCs with HIPs in the way proposed by the Government?
As mentioned above the NAEA supports the principle
of EPCs. The Association is one of the three awarding bodies for
the DEA qualification. However we fail to understand what the
European Directive has to do with HIPs and it is not appropriate
to link the two together.
We do not believe, certainly in the short to medium
term, that buyers will be influenced in their choice by the EPC
and it is inconceivable that potential sellers will carry out
expensive improvements before marketing. The payback period is
just too great and any increase in potential price will not reflect
the immediate cost.
Clearly it must be a good idea that every home has
an EPC and that owners can potentially look at ways of reducing
their running costs and thus reduce carbon emissions. The European
Directive suggests an EPC every 10 years yet the HIP regulations
insist that a new one is provided every time a new seller markets
the property. Where no improvements have been carried out since
the last sale this is surely a waste of money.
We do not consider that the EPC Directive is being
implemented in the best way and there should have been better
consultation as to the most effective way of achieving the desired
aim of reducing carbon emissions from homes.
Recently a very senior group of Stakeholders including
the NAEA, RICS, Law Society, Council of Mortgage Lenders, House
Builders Federation and others met to discuss their on-going concerns
that HIPs would not achieve the aim of improving the process.
A joint letter was sent to the Housing Minister, and subsequently
the Secretary of State, requesting a group meeting to explain
how the industry could work with Government to really achieve
improvements. Unfortunately these requests were ignored.
We would therefore ask the Committee to seriously
consider the facts and to come to the conclusion that the regulations,
as now published, will not make the home-buying and selling process
easier. HIPs are now purely an administrative burden to the process.
Perhaps we could also remind the Committee that Lord Rooker himself
said that HIPs had to be right as the Housing Market was too important
to risk playing with.
We hope that the above is of help to the Committee
and would be happy to answer any further questions.
19 April 2007
Letter from Louisa Stevens, Public Affairs Manager
UK, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Home Information Packs
I thought that it would be helpful to set out the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' (RICS) concerns about
forthcoming regulations enabling Article 7 of Directive 2002/91/EC
on Energy Performance of Buildings and regulations on Home Information
Packs.
We understand that the regulations will be laid on
29 March, the day Parliament rises for Easter recess and that
they will be subject to negative resolution. CLG intends that
they should come into effect on 1 June 2007 so this is the last
possible day they could be laid.
RICS has consistently supported the need to improve
the home buying and selling process and provide homeowners with
information on energy performance, and has worked with the government
over a number of years to achieve this, including providing substantial
expert advice and support on the development of Home Information
Packs. RICS is uniquely well placed to offer its perspective as
the leading property professional body, required by its Royal
Charter to place the public interest at the core of all its activities
and ahead of its members' own interests.
Lack of consultation
During the period leading up to operational implementation
of the Home Information Pack, RICS has become increasingly concerned
that the approach CLG intends to adopt does not conform with government
principles of better regulation. In particular we are concerned
about the legislative and consultative aspects of this exercise:
despite several major changes to the policy and implementation
proposals for achieving the HIP, there has been little or no genuine
consultation in recent months on matters of substance despite
the major impact that these will have on the property market.
This includes the regulations themselves, which, with two months
to go before this policy becomes law, we have not seen. Secondly,
CLG has not published a regulatory impact assessment setting out
any justification for its current proposals, which we believe
represent clear gold plating of an EU directive to achieve unrelated
policy objectives. We expand on this issue below.
Gold plating
The Directive requires an Energy Performance Certificate
to be provided every ten years; however we believe that the regulations
will require that a new Energy Performance Certificate is produced
every time a property is marketed since it must form part of the
Home Information Pack. This requirement is not backed up by any
evidence to suggest any beneficial effect and RICS believes that
a more flexible approach, within the confines of the Directive,
would enable greater efficiency and lower cost through the provision
of an Energy Performance Certificate at any stage of the transaction,
for example when a mortgage valuation is prepared.
Moving the Goal Post
The stated objective of the Home Information Pack
was to improve the home buying and selling process. In July 2006
the government decided to remove the requirement to provide a
Home Condition Report as a component part of the Pack. Furthermore
in January 2007, government announced that, at least until January
2008, two other key components of the Home Information Pack, local
authority searches and leasehold information, need not be included
in the pack as long as they had been requested. As it stands,
the Home Information Pack now only contains the Energy Performance
Certificate, the title deeds, a sales statement and the pack index.
It appears that the main aim of the Home Information Pack is now
to reduce carbon emissions rather than to improve the conveyance
process. Over the last year the whole policy objective has been
changed but no evidence has been published to support the new
direction., there has been no adequate trialling and no evidence
produced from the inadequate trials;
Market impact
In broad terms, RICS is concerned about the detrimental
impact the introduction of Home Information Packs will have on
the market and therefore the economy when introduced on 1 June
2007. We are also concerned at the government's cavalier approach
to the legislative process. We do not believe that the current
implementation approach will work and in particular we envisage
a detrimental effect on first time buyers from rising prices,
shortage of supply and abortive cost with little discernible benefit
if the policy is introduced in its present form. When the regulations
are laid later this week we will be urging proper debate in Parliament
of these important issues.
28 March 2007
Joint letter from Louisa Stevens, Public Affairs
Manager UK, and Gillian Charlesworth, Head of Regulation Policy,
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Further to the submission from RICS on 28 March regarding
regulations on Home Information Packs the relevant Statutory Instruments
were laid on 29 March. RICS has a number of specific concerns
that it would like to bring to the attention of the House of Lords
Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments.
On 29 March 2007 the following regulations and accompanying
documents were laid:
- SI 991 Building and Buildings, England and Wales:
The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections)
(England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (referred to in this letter
as EPB regulations)
- SI 992 Housing, England and Wales: The Home Information
Pack Regulations 2007 (referred to in this letter as HIP regulations)
In broad terms and for the purposes of this submission,
these regulations require, respectively:
- an energy performance certificate (EPC) to be
provided when a commercial or residential property is marketed,
sold or rented
- a Home Information Pack for residential marketed
sales
Our concerns about the regulations and associated
documents are numerous but we set out our key concerns as follows:
- Timing: these regulations
have been placed before Parliament a mere two months before they
come fully into force (in the case of HIP regulations) bringing
about large scale changes to the way property is bought and sold
in England and Wales. Certain provisions come into force before
the Parliamentary process is complete (17 April for domestic energy
assessor accreditation schemes).
- Quality of drafting.
In parts, both sets of regulations are almost impenetrable and
they contain a number of provisions that are simply unclear and
contradict statements made by the DCLG elsewhere.
- For example, Regulation18 of the HIP regulations
allows a property to be marketed without a complete HIP if leasehold
and search documentation is not available, as long as these documents
have been commissioned. It goes on to stipulate, however, that
a property can only be marketed with an incomplete HIP if the
missing documents are expected to arrive within 28 days. However,
this regulation is unclear on what must happen if the documents
have not arrived within 28 days - i.e. whether the property must
be taken off the market until the HIP is complete. The DCLG has
informed us orally that the intention is that the property can
continue to be marketed even if certain documents are still not
available for inclusion in the HIP. However, in a document entitled:
"HIPs update: Towards 1 June Summary of Consultation Responses"
published on 29 March, the following statement is made at paragraph
13: '"The 28 day period is intended as a limit". This
regulation is clearly based on hopes and wishes rather than on
what is possible or likely.
- Contradictions between regulations:
We are concerned that the two sets of regulations do not work
when taken together, which they must be in the context of HIPs
as both sets will apply to the EPC that goes into a HIP.
- For example EPB regulation 5 (2) requires an
EPC to be made available 'at the earliest opportunity' to any
prospective buyer or tenant of any building. HIP regulation 9
(b) requires an EPC to be included in a HIP in the context of
marketed residential property. We believe there is a big difference
between putting an EPC in the HIP - and providing it when asked
- and being under a duty to provide it to a range of people "at
the earliest opportunity".
- Consultation and impact assessment process
and timing: The associated Regulatory
Impact Assessment on Home Information Packs (expected in September
2006, but published on 29 March 2007) admits that, on 1 June and
beyond, some of the component parts of the Home Information Pack
might not be readily available. The regulations reflect this (as
described above), demonstrating the government's own lack of confidence
in this initiative. The most notable omission from a large number
of HIPs post 1 June is likely to be Local Authority Searches which
at present can take up to ten weeks to obtain.
The publication of a suite of documents running to
hundreds of pages including regulations, regulatory impact assessments,
explanatory memoranda and consultation responses two months before
implementation demonstrates once and for all that the government
is rushing through the regulations to meet an arbitrary implementation
date that can not be met in an orderly manner. The current implementation
model government proposes, which follows a major u-turn last July
when the Minister withdrew the requirement to include a Home Condition
Report in the HIP, has not been the subject of proper consultation
or debate in Parliament.
- Lack of evidence or understanding of likely
outcomes: the regulatory impact assessments
for both HIP and EPB policy are couched in terms such as 'likely'
'potential' 'anticipated', 'assumed', 'expected'. There is very
little concrete fact, almost no firm evidence and no analysis.
Government's normal process of evidence based policy decision
making has been ignored in this case.
- Gold plating: The
EU Directive (2002/91/EC) on which EPC policy is based contains
a provision for a new EPC every 10 years. For marketed residential
sales only, the government requires a new EPC every time the property
is marketed. This represents a clear case of gold plating and
inconsistency - we question why, if the arguments for a new EPC
every time a residential property is marketed are so compelling,
they have not also been employed in the context of rented and
commercial buildings.
In summary, it is RICS' view that Article 7 of Directive
2002/91/EC on Energy Performance of Buildings is being gold plated
and used to prop up the HIP, an ailing domestic policy.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should require
expansion on any of the points above, or those raised in our initial
submission. RICS hopes that the Committee will consider RICS'
concerns carefully especially where we have demonstrated that
(a) the EU Directive is being gold plated and (b) the regulations
will cause confusion and uncertainty, imperfectly achieving government's
policy objectives.
16 April 2007
Submission from Wendy Martin, Director of Policy,
Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services
LACORS is the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory
Services. It aims to promote and support quality regulation and
related local authority services across the UK. LACORS' aims and
objectives include providing advice and guidance to local authorities
in the development and dissemination of good practice, supporting
and promoting effective coordination, consistency, co-operation
and collaborative arrangements between local authorities. LACORS'
current portfolio of local authority services encompasses trading
standards work' amongst others. Primarily our response focuses
on the impact of HIPs and EPCs on local authority trading standards
services. We have also made general comments about our perceptions
of its impact on consumers and the industry. We have answered
your 3 specific questions and added some general comments about
enforcement issues.
LACORS has worked continuously with Communities and
Local Government throughout the various consultation stages. We
felt that the working relationship with the CLG officials has
been positive and we were especially pleased that the new burden
imposed by these regulations on local authorities was recognised
and also that CLG have agreed to work in partnership with LACORS
to ensure at least 1 -2 officers per authority are provided with
training on HIPs/EPCs free of charge.
Did you consider that the Home Information Packs
(HIPs) Regulations effectively served the Government's aim of
making the home-buying process easier and more transparent?
Although LACORS can appreciate the philosophy behind
the proposals for HIPs, without amending legislation such as the
Law of Property Act 1925, LACORS does not perceive how HIPs will
make the home-buying process easier and more transparent. We do
not believe that the introduction of HIPs will prevent the process
from remaining fragmented as it will always consist of a chain
of buying/selling transactions requiring a number of parties working
in conjunction to complete transactions successfully.
In particular we feel the enforcement provisions
means that the regulations are likely to have limited impact.
This is detailed later in our submission.
In July 2006, DCLG announced that Home Condition
Reports would not after all be a mandatory element of HIPs. This
is one of the main changes made by the 2007 Regulations. In the
light of these changes, how effective do you think that HIPs will
be in delivering the same aim?
Although LACORS considers that a Home Condition Report
(HCR) was a useful element in the pack, we do not believe it would
have prevented delays or wasted costs being incurred. Buyers,
generally, cannot secure a mortgage until the lender has obtained
a valuation. We understand most mortgage companies had not agreed
to waive this requirement even if HCRs were available. Many prospective
(especially first-time) buyers rely on the valuation, partly through
lack of awareness that it does not offer any protection should
faults be found later, and partly for financial reasons, because
full surveys are expensive. Even though the rights to a HCR made
available by the seller can apparently be passed onto the buyer,
we feel that the purchase of a home is too large a transaction
to convince a buyer to rely on a document that is not a survey
has been provided and paid for by the seller. We anticipate that
lawyers/conveyancers would always recommend that the buyer instruct
their own surveyor in order to protect their interests because
the seller's HCR might not be impartial. Likewise, a good lawyer/conveyancer
would always recommend that the buyer obtain searches and other
documents, some of which become out of date within 3-6 months,
prior to completing on a property transaction, in order to ensure
that the information the buyer has is up-to-date. Considering
that the seller will have paid for the original HCR and searches
and the buyer will have to pay for a survey and later searches,
LACORS does not understand how this helps the process.
DCLG have said that Energy Performance Certificates
(EPCs) will serve the aim of helping to reduce carbon emissions
from homes, and that an updated EPC will have to be produced every
time a residential property is marketed with an HIP. How effective
do you think EPCs will be in meeting this aim? Do you consider
that it is appropriate to link EPCs with HIPs in the way proposed
by the Government?
LACORS fully appreciates that the Government is aiming
to reduce carbon emissions. Under the proposed HIPs regulations
CLG has designated Local Authority Trading Standards Services
as the enforcer for EPCs for domestic sales. Despite strenuous
representations by LACORS, CLG has also designated LA Trading
Standards Services to be the enforcer for all sectors except new-build
which falls to Local Authority Building Control. LACORS remains
unconvinced that trading standards services are the right enforcement
agency for the rental and display sectors. Trading standards officers
do not have expert knowledge and have no experience in the rental
and display sectors where other agencies, such as environmental
health and housing officers have greater expertise and experience.
LACORS has reservations about the link between EPCs
and HIPs in the way proposed and we would have preferred implementation
of EPCs across the sectors to occur at one and the same time.
EPCs will add extra costs to the buying and selling
of homes although they may create an angle for price negotiation.
However LACORS does not believe that the impact of carbon emissions
or cost of fuel bills of their proposed home purchase will be
of paramount importance to consumers when compared to other factors
such as location and price.
Enforcement Issues
Beyond the problems with the principles behind HIPs
and EPCs as outlined above, we also feel the enforcement provisions
are problematic and will exacerbate the effectiveness of these
regulations in delivering government policy. LACORS strongly lobbied
for the breaches of the regulations to be a criminal offence (in
the same way as other consumer protection law, including offences
by estate agent for misdescribing property) and to use fixed penalty
charges which can be enforced in the Magistrates Courts if people
refuse to pay (in the same way as for littering, graffiti, sales
of alcohol to children etc). This was rejected and instead local
authorities are left with the only enforcement tool being a £200
penalty that is only enforceable through the civil courts. We
feel this level of penalty is very low to provide an incentive
for compliance. Furthermore we believe it unlikely that local
authorities will pursue non-payments of the fines because civil
court action is expensive and local authority trading standards
staff have no rights of audience in the County Court, whereas
they do in the Magistrates Court, meaning they have to pay for
lawyers to attend court.
In addition, the HIPs regulation enforcement provisions
mean that if a trading standards officer carries out any routine
checks or follow up complaints where it is suggested that someone
does not have HIP, then that person is not required to produce
one immediately and indeed has 7 days to be able to produce one
after a request by a local authority. Furthermore, a person is
not required to comply with such a request if he has a reasonable
excuse for not complying".
19 April 2007
| 
