Meeting of the Parliament 09 January 2014
If only John Lamont had waited until to the end of my riveting speech—I will come to that.
I know that this is riveting stuff—I have said so several times and I need to keep on saying it—so members will be sorry to see me sit down, but this is the final straight, unless of course John Lamont is hungry for more. The issue concerns land maintenance companies such as Greenbelt Group Ltd. I will not malign the company; the matter does not apply to it alone, but I merely use it as a convenient name that is publicly recognised as a company in this field. Speaking of fields, that is sometimes what residents find around their front door instead of the paid-for manicured lawns and well-tended shrubs for which they pay land maintenance companies a fee.
It is quite common on a modern estate to have open green land that is owned by a company that then charges for its maintenance. However, the trouble arises when the company does not maintain that bit of green space but the bill still lands in the homeowner’s letterbox. As with the reluctance of those who are not immediately affected by roof leaks, those who are distant from the thriving weeds and overgrown shrubs are not keen to get involved in taking the maintenance company to task. There are rules set up—those might be in a deed of conditions binding all the people on a big estate, which may be 60 to 100 people, to share such costs—that require them to set up an owners association to deal with the maintenance company, but they do not bother to do that. Consequently, everything gets stuck in individual disputes, amounting on occasion to the refusal of a homeowner to pay his or her bill, which certainly gums up any prospect of replacing the maintenance company.
Our recommendation—although we accept, especially in the current stringent climate, that it is a long-term goal—is that local authorities take over and see to the maintenance of such green spaces, much in the way that they eventually do the maintenance of roads in such developments. The committee felt that some mechanism for resolution is needed now—perhaps mediation—to resolve disputes in the interim.
Intriguingly—a word that only lawyers and former lawyers would use in the context—land maintenance companies might not be legally entitled to charge, being both the owners of the land and imposing the burden for maintenance while asking other people to pay for it. It is arguable that being able to look at the land and walk over it is not a benefit.
There was a delightful and slightly mischievous interchange between Professor Rennie and Professor Reid on whether land maintenance companies can charge at all, which is discussed on pages 18 to 20 of our report. I commend it to all who are with me so far. I could expand on that, but I do not have the time and—hey!—I do not want to spoil a good read. However, it is a rallying call to some chirpy lawyer out there to bring forward a test case, particularly if they can find the required man or a woman of straw who might access legal aid to fight one of the big boys.
I come to Mr Lamont’s point. I offer a word in the ear of prospective house purchasers, which is already imparted by lawyers, I think. The excitement and drama of purchasing a home—some of us have been there—should not drown out the voice of the lawyer in the purchaser’s ears telling them in plain English, I hope, about liabilities for the roof. For instance, the person who owns the top flat might be liable for all the roof maintenance. The lawyer should also tell people what the deed of conditions might mean to their monthly bank balance.
It is better for the home owner to attend to a few loose slates or a leaking gable before they invest in an unnecessary replacement kitchen. Although the law needs to be overhauled in some areas and tweaked in others, it is also a home owner’s responsibility to ensure that the fabric of the house is not neglected for the sake of some more glamorous gadgets.
I am 33 seconds over. That is not bad.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Justice Committee’s 8th Report, 2013 (Session 4): Inquiry into the effectiveness of the provisions of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (SP Paper 338).