This week, we take an in depth look at seller's packs. Find out what they are, what they will mean to buyers and sellers, what their critics and advocates say about them, some of the possible consequences of their introduction, and our view of the whole thing.

The trials of the governments long awaited seller's packs were announced to a fanfare of noise and publicity at the beginning of the year in Bristol. Since then any news about them has been noticeable by its absence. However, the furore surrounding the pack's proposed introduction has once again been raised to a deafening level following both the government interim report on the Bristol trials and a study of the pack's feasibility in Bradford and Burnley by the Department of Environment and Transport. The noise is set to continue as the government releases the full results of the Bristol experience next month.

With housing minister Nick Raynsford currently laying the foundations for legislation enforcing the packs use from 2003 onwards, we take a look at some of the issues causing such concern.

Even if we have all heard of them it's surprising how few people know what the packs will entail. The idea is simple. Sellers will provide potential buyers with the essential information they need when they view a property, without them having to pay for any of it.

The current trials are using a seller's pack containing a full survey and the entire local authority searches and other miscellaneous searches a potential buyer may require. Under the present system the responsibility of carrying these out falls to the buyer for any property they are seriously considering purchasing. This can obviously end up being a number of surveys and searches if thing don't go according to plan.

To reduce the potential cost and time involved in the purchase process the scheme will insist that the owners of a property must commission a survey, all the necessary searches and provide title deeds and a draft contract prior to the property being placed on the market. It is also thought that they may serve to guarantee any work agreed by the owners to be carried out on the property.

This pack will then be available to any potential buyer. In effect it will serve the same purpose as a car log, detailing any present or potential problems with the property. While most of the information can be provided free of charge or for a fairly low sum of money, a survey most certainly cannot. The estimates of the cost for a seller's pack range wildly, from as little as £200 to a whopping £1000. We expect the average pack to set you back around £500.

There has long been concern that the process of buying a house in England is complicated, long-winded and expensive. The current process has seen the ugly head of gazumping become a common feature in the market. If, as intended, the process is speeded up by the introduction of seller's packs, it is believed that the window of opportunity for gazumping will be closed down to a minimal level. The inclusion of a survey should also minimise the occurrences of mis-selling, where sellers attempt to cover up major structural damage to a property. Sounds perfect.

However, it is not quite as simple as all that. A survey will be an integral feature of the pack. Yet only one in five buyers actually commission a full survey. And while the seller accepts this cost, many buyers who would not normally request a survey will actually bear the cost, as they themselves will be selling a property for which they have to pay for a pack to be completed. In effect the cost of purchasing a property is being increased. Not a situation welcomed by many. Except of course by the surveyors, who will clearly benefit from all of the extra work being pushed their way.

It is also widely accepted that many sellers speculatively put a property on the market to test the water, yet do often end up selling for the right offer. Speculative sellers are likely to be put off by the £500 cost of obtaining a sellers pack. Would this reduce supply, thereby increasing competition and driving up prices? Only time will tell.

And will buyers believe a survey provided and paid for by a seller? How does the buyer know that the surveyor is offering a fair and unbiased view and not simply sales patter? If a seller disagrees or is simply unhappy with the negative results of the first survey, what is stopping them simply covering up the damage reported and arranging for a new inspection by a different surveyor.

What happens if the house does not sell? Will the survey still be valid after say nine months? Or will the seller have to bear the cost of a new survey at regular intervals? The problems mount.

Ministers say the results of the Bradford and Burnley study are encouraging. Housing Minister Nick Raynsford commented "The results show that sellers and buyers and local property professionals all believe that the seller's pack can help solve some of the market problems currently faced in these areas, and play a major part in making the home buying and selling process easier, more transparent, faster and more certain. This will stand us in good stead as we finalise the detail of the reforms package."

However, the scheme has many critics and the government's comments have failed to sway many of them from their opinions. Critics argue that extra costs of the packs will heavily discourage people from putting properties up for sale, especially in areas where property prices are low. In parts of the North-East, many terraced house sell for as little as £10,000. The cost of a pack is disproportionately high for such properties and such areas would ultimately suffer from further depression in the housing market.

Trevor Kent, former president of the National Association of Estate Agents and leader of a campaign against Seller's Packs rebuffed the government's stance saying, "I am flabbergasted. The Housing Minister seems desperate to cling to a straw poll, which is all this is... It is widely believed that a full trial in Bristol has already sunk without trace. Quite why he is still searching for a lifeboat at this stage, I don't understand."

Mr Kent's scathing attack on the government continued over the housing minister's assessment of the Bristol trials. According to the government 65 had received an offer or were about to. Mr Kent went on record saying, "the true figure at the time of the report was nearer 30". And while the government claimed that the average time it took for two thirds of sellers to obtain a seller's pack was only 13 days, according to a discovery be Mr Kent this did not include weekends which pushed the true length of time closer to three weeks. In a final insult to the government Mr Kent added "Mr Raynsford's interim report on the Bristol seller's pack trial is riddled with woodworm, and has been spun by the DETR to a disgraceful extent."

Others, such as Justin Anim, managing director of North-east-based Keith Pattinson Estate Agents have entered the foray adding, "I am not convinced it is a solution to speeding up the process and I am not sure it will even stop gazumping," and with regards the Bristol trials, "The pilot scheme has opened up more questions than answers."

Not all were quite so critical of the government's attempts to shore up the foundations of the current property buying quagmire. Richard Townsend of the Tyneside Consumer Group suggested "There are a few problems but in principle the packs seem like a good idea," although "The cost of the packs need to vary."

The effect of seller's packs on small and independent estate agents could be devastating. While the bank-owned and insurance backed agencies will be able to cover the costs of surveys and offer the packs for free, this will simply not be viable for many.

The consumers will no doubt be more than ready to take up the offer of free packs starving many agencies of vital customers and eventually forcing them out of business. Mr Kent commented, "If we charge a £500 fee without a sale we are never going to get any business. It will make it very difficult for us - I have had hundreds of letters supporting me and I just think the Government has got it wrong".

The eventual number of casualties could be as high as 7,500 agencies as potential sellers think long and hard about putting a property on the market and forking out £500 or simply choosing the bank-backed agencies. And although the cost reduction of using a larger agency seems attractive, "Customers will be losing the opportunity to have independent advice and they will be tied in to the lawyer, the money-lender and the surveyor who are all being employed by the larger building societies."

A side effect of the seller's pack will be the massive increase in demand for surveys. The UK is currently experiencing a significant shortage of qualified surveyors, a situation likely to worsen as seller's packs are introduced.

While the Institute for Chartered Surveyors recently announced plans to recruit around 5,000 new employees, the capacity for the industry to undertake extra work until they are fully trained is obviously limited. Quite how the Institute plans to achieve these employment targets and how long it will take are also questionable issues.

It seems likely that the introduction of the sellers pack may well even slow down the purchase process, defeating entirely their purpose.

The current system is not perfect by any means and the government should be thanked for taking the initiative to improve the situation. However, as with many instances of government intervention, the results are not always as positive as the intention. The government should accept that the seller's pack is not the answer they hoped it would be. Perhaps further investigation of the situation in tandem with the market is the answer. The fears remain, for the time being at least that the new legislation will be blindly pushed through creating even more expense and inefficiency than already being experienced.