My pa is a solicitor, mainly conveyancing, and he should've retired at least 10 years ago but his pension got stuffed and he likes his job. I admire him hugely not least because he has had three successful careers, one in New Zealand, where he had reached the top by 33, one in the City, from which he retired 21 years ago, taking a nice lump sum with him, and subsequently, when my mother divorced him, and he lost everything on the stock market simultaneously, he started up again with a failing firm that he got for nothing and avoided bankrupcy. Now, in spite of the housing market's current state he is still managing to pay his staff and has enough to see him through in relative comfort unless the £ does a Zim.
He told me that he wrote to Yvette Cooper, not for the first time, about HIPS. He always has charged more for conveyancing flats than houses because questions need to be raised of the landlord/freeholder, and this has usually been about an extra £100. But recently a landlord charged £450 to answer a few questions associated with the requirements of HIPS. His point for Ms Cooper was that Landlords charges due to HIPs requirements were making flat sales/purchases even more prohibitive and expensive as the Landlord's costs have to be born by the seller.
Eventually one of Ms Cooper's flunkies replied stating that there were no proposals to limit the amout Landlords could charge for giving replies as the Leasholder could have access to a Tribunal to dispute these costs.
How smart is that? Wait six months for a Tribunal to decide that your Landlord's charges are reasonable? Pay legal costs for same? Oh yes, they are smart these people.
Dad has forward the correspondence to the Law Society for their edification.