Mortgages Latest figures from the Major British Banking Groups, for March 2006 show that the total sterling lending to the UK private sector showed a net underlying increase of £23.0bn, +2.0% to £1,191bn. This was double both the previous month’s underlying rise of £11.4bn and the average over the previous six months. It also shows that net mortgage lending rose by an underlying £5.4bn. This was higher than both the £4.7bn rise in February and the average of +£4.9bn over the previous six months. Unsecured personal lending fell by £0.4bn compared with an average rise of £0.5bn in the previous six months. Loans & overdrafts fell by more than £0.1bn, whilst credit card borrowing also declined by £0.2bn compared with an average increase of £0.2bn in the previous six months. Lending to non-financial companies was very strong; the main components being lending to real estate companies rising by £0.7bn and lending to wholesale & retail trade which also rose by £0.7bn. There was also strong lending to transport, storage & communication, +£0.5bn, hotels & restaurants, £0.3bn and cold water supply +£0.2bn. In contrast there were net repayments by the manufacturing sector of £0.2bn. Deposits from the private sector rose by £16.0bn, +1.9% to £865bn. In addition to very buoyant corporate deposits, personal deposits increased by £4.8bn compared with average growth of £3.0bn in the previous six months. This strong rise reflected inflows into certain deposit products, eg cash ISAs offering attractive interest rates, whilst the timing of the end of the month also resulted in higher balances in general. David Dooks, BBA director of statistics, says: "The contrast between stronger mortgage lending and net repayments of unsecured borrowing suggests that individuals are optimistic about the housing market, though careful about card borrowing, overdrafts or taking on personal loans. “When deposit growth over recent months is also taken into account, the aggregate financial position of the personal sector as a whole does not appear to be under strain." Analysis of MBBG sterling lending to UK public and private sectors. Total net lending rose by an underlying £5,069mn in March, compared to £5,347mn in February and £5,057mn in March 2005. Of the total, mortgage lending accounted for £5,424mn of the rise, compared to February’s rise of £4,735mn. Within consumer credit, personal loans & overdrafts fell by £145mn compared to February’s £456mn, while credit card lending also fell (-£211mn) compared with an underlying rise of £160mn in February and the average over the previous six months was +£177mn. Lending to financial companies rose strongly, by £5,081mn in March mainly reflecting borrowing by miscellaneous financial intermediaries (+£3,195mn), securities dealers (+£1,098mn) and leasing companies (+£971mn). There was strong lending to non-financial firms in March. Real estate companies (+£685mn), wholesale & retail trade (+£684mn), transport, storage & communication (+£539mn) and hotels & restaurants (+£287mn). There were net repayments by manufacturing companies (-£235mn). New Mortgages: Purchase News Confusion over HIP financial penalties Research carried out by SimplyHIP, the HIP provider and part of SimplyConveyancing, found that 84% of estate agents did not know the correct financial implications for not having a completed HIP in place prior to selling a residential property from June 1st 2007. Whilst 89% knew that there was a fine, 84% did not know that it was £200 per day; 36% thought that it was £200 in total, 12% believed it was under £200 in total and the remainder gave no implication of the financial penalties. Ashley King, director of SimplyHip, says: "The esearch shows that a lot more needs to be done to ensure that the industry is fully prepared and trained for HIPs. “Many agents felt that a fine of only £200 was a scant disincentive to ensure that vendors had a completed HIPs prior to commencing the marketing of their property." However, when asked whether a £200 a day fine was a large enough inducement to ensure compliance, 73% agreed, 9% disagreed and 18% did not know. King says: "There has been reasonable consultation about the amount the fine should be and it seems that, when in the know, agents are positive that the figure is set at the correct amount to deter vendors from attempting to sell their property without a completed HIP." Only 15% of those questioned knew that those exempt from having to complete a HIP were private sellers, selling to a family member or friend. And some 76% believed that everyone had to have a HIP and the remainder did not know. King believes that additional clarity needs to be given as to who is exempt from completing a HIP. He says: "To date there is still confusion as to all the rules and regulation surrounding the exemption clauses."