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
I would not dispute that. I have heard a variety of figures mentioned. I have also heard about what, in the trade, are loosely called gentlemen’s agreements, whereby the factor’s brother-in-law paints the close and the transaction is kept in the family. That is the bad side of factoring, but there are very many good factors who work well with the people for whom they are contracted to work.
I am extremely interested in switching, to which it is important to devote some of my time. There is a need for people to understand what the current rules say. Most people have the right to switch, whether through their title deeds, the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 or some other legislation. The problem that we encounter is that switching requires a majority of the eligible people to attend a meeting, and that can be difficult to achieve, because some of them might be absentee landlords, might not be interested, might be on holiday, might be in hospital or might be prevented from getting to the meeting by the weather. It can therefore be quite difficult to change factor, even when people in a property or development feel that that is the right thing to do.
However, we must be extremely careful if we want to consider changing how people can switch. What could be put in place of a majority? It would have to be a minority. When a small number of people in a development come together, they might have a good shared agenda, but sometimes they might not have such a good shared agenda, in which case problems could come to the surface—the very problems that we are trying to resolve by means of the bill.
I take Robert Brown’s point about sheltered housing complexes. As he mentioned, he has had an interest in Stonelaw Court, which I have visited. In fact, the committee heard evidence from Ms Murray of Stonelaw Court on the difficulties that residents have had. I think that it is unacceptable that their lifts, their car parking spaces and the flat for the warden can form part of the consideration of what makes a majority, which allows the person who developed the property in the first place to have a controlling interest. That needs to be resolved. However, if we want to go into switching—I am happy to do so—we must be careful about it, because we do not want to create problems that are similar to those that we are trying to resolve.
I am delighted to have the minister’s support, which he had indicated to me privately, and I welcome the dialogue with him. His support perhaps went to the extreme last week, when he lodged the motion to agree to my bill at stage 1 in his name, with support from Ms Sturgeon. However, I found out that that was an inadvertent move by the Government and not a deliberate ploy. Anyway, that support is welcome, in whatever form it comes.
Mr Neil described what he called three challenges, one of which related to the definition of a property manager. I am not sure—I will check it out—that the definition that I have provided does not cover the circumstances that he outlined; I think that it does. However, if it does not, I am happy to consider the matter further. An important point relates to the interface between title conditions, the definition and deregistration, which I might talk about in a little more detail.
I heard what the minister said about the costs of a panel versus an ombudsman for the dispute resolution mechanism, but we must think about other issues, too. Mr McLetchie was correct to suggest that the home owner housing panel is perhaps underutilised and that expanding its work—perhaps without an increase in costs—might be sensible.
We must consider what we are trying to achieve and whether an ombudsman system would achieve it for us. I have sincere doubts about that. Whatever mechanism we put in place must be independent of property managers and must be seen to be independent. I am not sure whether the ombudsman service that the minister mentioned would fit those criteria, at least in the eyes of people who have problems.
I am slightly taken aback by the minister’s determination about ombudsmen, given that he told the committee in connection with another matter that his view was that having a court or a tribunal to deal with housing issues might be the way to go. That is my bill’s direction of travel; it does not take us back—as I see it—to an ombudsman system.
I hope that I have covered several of the issues that members have raised. I am conscious of the time. I am grateful to all those who gave evidence to the committee. I listened to what they said with much interest. The Parliament has shown today that we all collectively listened to the issues that the witnesses raised and those that our constituents brought to us.
I look forward to working with the committee and the Government to ensure that the bill in its final form is robust and resilient, provides a more transparent system for home owners, and safeguards home owners and the good factors who work in Scotland from the very few bad factors who take advantage of our constituents. We in the Parliament have raised the problem’s profile; now we need to raise the standard of the worst factors to the level of good factors. The bill will be part of that process.
I am extremely interested in switching, to which it is important to devote some of my time. There is a need for people to understand what the current rules say. Most people have the right to switch, whether through their title deeds, the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 or some other legislation. The problem that we encounter is that switching requires a majority of the eligible people to attend a meeting, and that can be difficult to achieve, because some of them might be absentee landlords, might not be interested, might be on holiday, might be in hospital or might be prevented from getting to the meeting by the weather. It can therefore be quite difficult to change factor, even when people in a property or development feel that that is the right thing to do.
However, we must be extremely careful if we want to consider changing how people can switch. What could be put in place of a majority? It would have to be a minority. When a small number of people in a development come together, they might have a good shared agenda, but sometimes they might not have such a good shared agenda, in which case problems could come to the surface—the very problems that we are trying to resolve by means of the bill.
I take Robert Brown’s point about sheltered housing complexes. As he mentioned, he has had an interest in Stonelaw Court, which I have visited. In fact, the committee heard evidence from Ms Murray of Stonelaw Court on the difficulties that residents have had. I think that it is unacceptable that their lifts, their car parking spaces and the flat for the warden can form part of the consideration of what makes a majority, which allows the person who developed the property in the first place to have a controlling interest. That needs to be resolved. However, if we want to go into switching—I am happy to do so—we must be careful about it, because we do not want to create problems that are similar to those that we are trying to resolve.
I am delighted to have the minister’s support, which he had indicated to me privately, and I welcome the dialogue with him. His support perhaps went to the extreme last week, when he lodged the motion to agree to my bill at stage 1 in his name, with support from Ms Sturgeon. However, I found out that that was an inadvertent move by the Government and not a deliberate ploy. Anyway, that support is welcome, in whatever form it comes.
Mr Neil described what he called three challenges, one of which related to the definition of a property manager. I am not sure—I will check it out—that the definition that I have provided does not cover the circumstances that he outlined; I think that it does. However, if it does not, I am happy to consider the matter further. An important point relates to the interface between title conditions, the definition and deregistration, which I might talk about in a little more detail.
I heard what the minister said about the costs of a panel versus an ombudsman for the dispute resolution mechanism, but we must think about other issues, too. Mr McLetchie was correct to suggest that the home owner housing panel is perhaps underutilised and that expanding its work—perhaps without an increase in costs—might be sensible.
We must consider what we are trying to achieve and whether an ombudsman system would achieve it for us. I have sincere doubts about that. Whatever mechanism we put in place must be independent of property managers and must be seen to be independent. I am not sure whether the ombudsman service that the minister mentioned would fit those criteria, at least in the eyes of people who have problems.
I am slightly taken aback by the minister’s determination about ombudsmen, given that he told the committee in connection with another matter that his view was that having a court or a tribunal to deal with housing issues might be the way to go. That is my bill’s direction of travel; it does not take us back—as I see it—to an ombudsman system.
I hope that I have covered several of the issues that members have raised. I am conscious of the time. I am grateful to all those who gave evidence to the committee. I listened to what they said with much interest. The Parliament has shown today that we all collectively listened to the issues that the witnesses raised and those that our constituents brought to us.
I look forward to working with the committee and the Government to ensure that the bill in its final form is robust and resilient, provides a more transparent system for home owners, and safeguards home owners and the good factors who work in Scotland from the very few bad factors who take advantage of our constituents. We in the Parliament have raised the problem’s profile; now we need to raise the standard of the worst factors to the level of good factors. The bill will be part of that process.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7531, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill. Time is fairly tight for...
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased that we are debating the Local Government and Communities Committee’s stage 1 report on the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill, and I would like t...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased to be taking part in the debate as convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee. We were the lead committee that looked at Patrici...
The Minister for Housing and Communities (Alex Neil)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced to the Parliament by Patricia Ferguson. The Government recogni...
Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, am pleased to take part in the stage 1 debate on the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on getting the bill to this s...
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Con
Like other members, I congratulate Patricia Ferguson, the bill’s sponsor, on her persistence and dedication in bringing this measure to Parliament and, I mig...
Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD)
LD
The Liberal Democrats welcome the member’s bill that Patricia Ferguson has introduced and offer our congratulations to her. I also congratulate the clerks, w...
Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
I, too, congratulate Patricia Ferguson and thank her for introducing the bill. As one of the original signatories to the bill proposal, I am pleased to speak...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Lab
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 diligen...
Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
Stage 1 is an important staging post in assessing the many issues that are the origin of the bill. I pay tribute to Patricia Ferguson for the methodical mann...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
Does Elizabeth Smith accept that clarity on the point that she has just raised might make it easier for some people to accept liability for payments, and not...
Elizabeth Smith
Con
Mr Brown makes a valid point, and I and the Conservative party in general accept it. It is a strong message in the bill.The relationship between the property...
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I thank Patricia Ferguson for introducing the bill, and I thank my fel...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Factoring is an enormous issue in the new-build flats in my constituency, albeit not in the traditional tenements, which in Edinburgh have never had factors....
Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West) (SNP)
SNP
I echo others in the chamber in congratulating Patricia Ferguson on the bill, which touches on a subject that is of great concern to many of our constituents...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I praise Patricia Ferguson for introducing the bill and for the manner in which she has done so. Although this debate wil...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
The debate that we have had today and the process that led us to it form a good example of the Parliament at its best. I only wonder why it has taken us so l...
Mary Mulligan
Lab
This has been an excellent debate in which all members have made quite heartfelt pleas for legislation. That is not always the case in this chamber.As Jim To...
Alex Neil
SNP
This debate on the principles of the bill and the issues that are to be addressed at stage 2 has been good and consensual. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson a...
David McLetchie
Con
In relation to those figures—£2,000 a case and 220 cases a year for the private rented housing panel—is the minister convinced that the panel provides value ...
Alex Neil
SNP
The reality is that it is quasi-judicial. As Mr McLetchie will know, anything that is judicial, and particularly anything that involves lawyers, can be extre...
Robert Brown
LD
Will the minister take a further brief intervention on that?
Alex Neil
SNP
Of course, from another lawyer. Are they going to declare an interest, Presiding Officer?
Robert Brown
LD
The issue is about the need to have at the end of the process an enforceable order so that everybody knows where they stand. It is a judicial process and it ...
Alex Neil
SNP
The enforceable order would be the responsibility of other authorities and not necessarily the panel or ombudsman. My point is that there are a great deal of...
Patricia Ferguson
Lab
I very much welcome the content and tone of the debate. I will try to respond as best I can to the issues that members have raised. The debate has demonstrat...
Malcolm Chisholm
Lab
At the recent meeting that I referred to, it seemed that a large number of people were paying 35 per cent commission to factors for their insurance.
Patricia Ferguson
Lab
I would not dispute that. I have heard a variety of figures mentioned. I have also heard about what, in the trade, are loosely called gentlemen’s agreements,...