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

Smith, Liz Con Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

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 manner in which she has enabled us to examine each issue. The staging post has given members the opportunity to consider the evidence that our constituents provided—there was considerable evidence, in my case—and the evidence that various interested parties supplied.

As David McLetchie made clear, the Scottish Conservatives had reservations about whether there was a need for a legislative process. However, as time has passed we have become increasingly concerned about the loopholes in the existing legislation and increasingly conscious of the concern that remains about whether the sector itself could take the measures that are needed to ensure that it reforms.

An important factor—I ask members to forgive the pun—is that 30 per cent of people who are looking after properties are letting down their customers in some way. Too many disappointed people have flagged up the lack of a sufficiently robust complaints procedure, and too few residents are aware of their rights.

As we heard in the debate, in almost every constituency in Scotland there is evidence of residents encountering difficulties with their factors. There is no doubt that in many—although by no means all—cases, such residents are from older and perhaps more vulnerable groups. Therefore, the issues deserve full parliamentary scrutiny.

I put on record again that many factors do an excellent job and provide first-class facilities across the board. It is essential that we support those factors and that proposed new legislation is neither overbureaucratic nor too restrictive for the choices that customers must make.

We need to be clear that new legislation will tackle: first, the question of accreditation, regulation and quality assurance; secondly, the absence of effective complaints procedures against factors who default; and thirdly, as Sandra White said, the need for greater transparency when it comes to obtaining relevant financial information about a managing company’s accounts.

When it comes to better quality assurance, we need a level playing field, as Paul Martin said. Currently there is often a considerable contrast between conditions in older title deeds, which make almost no provision for common decision making, and conditions in newer title deeds, which provide for more extensive and more comprehensive service provision.

We have understood the calls to seek mandatory regulation, including compulsory registration, since that might be the best way of benchmarking factors against best practice. There have been arguments on both sides for us, but the key principle must be to ensure effective consumer choice and the absence of expensive red tape.

We are absolutely clear that there must be an effective complaints procedure that leaves no scope for the difficult factor to manipulate the situation and discriminate against the customer. There must be clarity about the respective roles of the managing company and the body of owners and residents, and their responsibilities as well as their legal rights.

We believe that there must be much greater facility for financial transparency, so that owners and residents can see clearly what their money is being spent on and how value for money can be measured. We particularly noted the concerns that were raised by the Scottish Consumer Council when it made its submission to the Office of Fair Trading, that in too many cases consumers find it difficult to exercise collective choice and switch, which can be a constraint upon suppliers and can prevent consumers from getting best value for money.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2010

In the same item of business