Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2010

08 Dec 2010 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Property Factors (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Martin, Paul Lab Glasgow Springburn Watch on SPTV

Like other members, I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on introducing her bill and getting it to stage 1. She should be commended for her hard work and diligence on a highly complex issue. I vouch for the fact that she was determined to reach the chamber today—I shared the train journey with her. The phrase “husky dogs” was mentioned a number of times, in case we could not get on that dreaded train. We are here, anyway.

The committee has provided a comprehensive analysis of the various challenges that we face in considering the bill. Patricia Ferguson has shown a mature attitude to taking on a number of those challenges, showing humility where required and ensuring that the issues will be dealt with at stage 2.

I am convinced that the bill will give consumers protection from the unscrupulous and unacceptable practices of many property factors. I understand that more than 200 factors are unregistered under the current regime, which is unacceptable.

Part 1, which deals with the registration of property factors, will require Scottish ministers to prepare and maintain a public register of all property factors. In the information age that we live in, it is perfectly reasonable to require such information to be provided on the internet. That requirement should not be seen as cumbersome; it should have been in place already. It should not be difficult to provide people with that sort of opportunity.

Part 1 will allow Scottish ministers to refuse or deregister a property factor, and to remove them from the register of factors. I welcome the inclusion of that provision in Patricia Ferguson’s bill. When we discuss the issues and challenges that we could face if we were to deregister a factor, we should take into account some of the challenges that other professions face when people have to be deregistered. I do not remember anyone advising me that we could not deregister a dentist because he had a number of clients—that is like saying that we should not challenge the very principle of whether he should be a dentist in the first place, because of the chaotic circumstances that would ensue. As part of the principle of the issue, it should be accepted that, where a factor is not performing its duties, it should not be in place. However, I appreciate the challenges of dealing with title conditions and so on, and I hope that the minister can address some of those challenges.

A further challenge is the very principle of whether to regulate. As a number of witnesses stated at committee, the feature of regulation appears in a number of professions and has done for many years. It is a proven case, and David McLetchie amplified that point. The voluntary approach has simply not worked and, as has been stated by many people in the industry—from the profession itself—the rogue factors would simply opt out of the scheme if it was voluntary. What Patricia Ferguson proposes will provide clarity for all concerned, including reputable factors in the industry. There are many such factors, but the rogue factors make it difficult to acknowledge that.

A number of members, including me, deal with cases that concern property factors. As I said, many factors try their best to provide a service, sometimes in difficult circumstances, for example when owners—often absentee landlords—show no interest in investing in their properties.

However, the issue is that there is not a level playing field. Consumers are being exposed to unscrupulous activity on the part of factors, particularly when they dispute bills. It is common for consumers to dispute invoices—I have done so many times and I am sure that many members have done likewise. A constituent of mine disputed a bill for £8 from Walker Sandford Property Management, which turned into a bill for £1,200, because of the charges for the reminder letters that were sent to him. I appreciate some of the challenges that Walker Sandford and other property managers face in collecting invoice returns, but it is unacceptable that the people whom they serve—our constituents—should be charged £15 per letter or that a bill should accumulate to more than £1,200.

I hope and am convinced that Patricia Ferguson’s bill will deal with such unacceptable practice and that the provisions on dispute resolution will ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone. I commend the bill and I hope that it will be passed at stage 3.

16:32

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2010

In the same item of business