I'll listen to part the second after I've done something useful.

Finally got a round tuit and listened but Part 2 didn't really yank my chain - though other listeners may have a different response. There was, however, a bit of nonsense about EPCs that caught my ear.

In Part 1 he'd said that the most important part of the EPC was the cost/benefit analysis of conducting any works recommended in the report and that will go out-of-date so quickly that the lifetime of a report's validity should be kept low. This has the side-effect of creating more fee-earning opportunities for his members so it's not surprising that he'd take this view.

In Part 2 he acknowledges that the certificate won't actually cause anyone to conduct the works and that education, awareness and grants (eg via an adequately-funded Energy Savings Trust) are among the ways to reduce energy wastage. However, the acknowledged fact that any works suggested in an EPC won't necessarily be conducted doesn't prevent him from subsequently quoting a figure that the delay in introduction will cause 250,000 tonnes of carbon to be pumped into the atmosphere. I haven't checked the purported sources of the statistic but the inconsistency of his statements is obvious.

I acknowledge the inevitability of EPCs in accordance with EU Directive 2002/91/EC but don't see why we don't just implement on a sensible time-scale without gold-plating and in a manner such that the marginal cost is minimised.

Mr Ockenden would seem to have a problem with "vested interests". Not those of his association, of course, but those attributed to all those currently involved in the buying/selling process. This is a nice use of smoke and mirrors as many of those in the current system are also members of his Association!

While acknowledging that anyone can assemble a HIP, he mentioned (what some may see as a restrictive practice) that the large legal firms who are members of his association would only rely on the contents of the pack if it bore the logo of a AHIPP member and he expected this to lead all legal firms to adopt the same stance. I don't understand why the contents of a pack could have different levels of credibility depending on who assembled them into a pack (he had earlier said that, for example, a search is a search is a search regardless of who ordered it).

Oh, well! I guess it yanked my chain more than I'd thought but I'll stop at this point. I obviously heard everything with my own bias and preconceptions pre-filtering what was said and leading to interpretations that may not be impartial and balanced. ;^) Have a listen to both parts for yourself and respond here or on the "Money Talk Podcast" board (where I'll post a link to this thread) :
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Messages.asp?bid=51597&mid=10561546

Cheers!