Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008

The crucial words there are ““a reasonable estimate””. I think that local authorities know what they are up against these days and they are aware of their responsibility to try to maintain as lively and thriving a market as possible. However, other factors come in as well. My advice is that Regulation 6(2) regarding the unit charge applies only to access to a property search; the costs to the consumers are discretionary. So two things are happening there and I am grateful for clarification on that. The other thing that we need to think about is that, in trying to remain competitive in a declining market, the private sector will be restrained in passing on additional costs to consumers. I think that improved competition based on the OFT’s envisaged level playing field will place additional pressure on search prices to fall, certainly in the medium to longer term. The guidance also states that local authorities are allowed to charge for units of data, so they will not be so reliant on collecting data for a property search. The noble Baroness asked whether you would be paying to maintain your archive. The answer is no. The costs you would pay would relate to what you have to deliver to the consumer, so we can be certain that it would be the relevant portion of the specific data. The noble Baroness asked some specific questions and perhaps I may address the important one about whether we have reversed an existing point of law. We certainly would not agree with that. Essentially, the regulations are intended to clarify a point of law which was disputed by some. We were of the view that the previous regulations allowed local authorities the discretion to charge for data where the statute is silent on charging, although the personal searchers certainly disputed that and some local authorities were unsure. It is worth putting that on the record because the new regulations put the issue beyond doubt. That was explicitly covered in the original consultation on charging, which ended in April 2008, and it is also the position that the OFT set out in its 2005 report. Essentially, property search data fall into three categories: data held on public registers that can explicitly be inspected free of charge; data held on public registers where the statute says nothing about charging; and data not held on a public register. We believe that local authorities always have the power to charge for the latter two categories, and the new charging regulations reflect that. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. She also asked whether the local authority would be checked by the district auditor. That will indeed be the case. She asked whether the local authority would have the freedom to differentiate between different levels of service support—if, for example, there was a particular challenge or a particular urgency—and, again, the answer is yes. She also asked me something that I cannot answer; I am afraid that I shall have to write to her about that. I think I have picked up most of the questions that the noble Baroness asked. On the noble Lord’s final question about bundling up, I am not sure what the Land Registry’s practice is. I will look into that. It seems not to be entirely logical if the registry does not distinguish between units of dwelling in property searches. I will check. My understanding is that there would have to be an individual property search on each property—in fact, I am sure that that is the case—but I will see if I can throw some light on this strange situation that may have arisen with the Land Registry. I think I have answered all the questions but, if I have not, I will be happy to do so in writing when I have read Hansard tomorrow.