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

Neil, Alex SNP Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

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 detailed issues to be addressed in part 2. I agree with Mary Mulligan that Robert Brown makes a valid point that we need to consider enforcement, including who does the enforcement, what it costs, and whether that cost is passed on to an errant factor. All those matters need to be addressed in the bill but, in its current form, it does not do so. I am highlighting that those issues need to be rectified. Whichever model members prefer, we are all agreed that those matters need to be addressed and resolved at stages 2 and 3.

Sandra White made relevant points about the composition of the panel and other matters. Another relevant point is the expertise that is required, either for an ombudsman or a panel. A lot of careful consideration is required, given the importance of dispute resolution to the effective functioning of the bill.

Another general point relates to switching. Although that matter is not covered by the bill, our plans for the future on switching are important. The issue of switching, whether in relation to traditional property factors or land maintenance companies, has featured heavily in the debate and in the evidence to the committee. The committee said that the ability of consumers to switch their factors or land maintenance companies is a major issue, and I agree with that. An ability to switch providers more easily would help to improve many of the issues that consumers face when dealing with the industry.

The Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 contains provisions that enable managers of property to be dismissed and replaced. However, as members have said, it can be difficult to dismiss and replace property factors, in part because a high level of agreement among the residents is required, as Robert Brown pointed out. There is nothing in the bill on switching by residents, but the committee suggested that the Government should carry out research on that. We recognise the need to do that research and we will do it. We are considering whether it would be useful to issue a consultation paper on potential changes to the 2003 act to lay down clear procedures on the switching of land maintenance companies by residents.

The fundamental aim would be to ensure that switching can take place when two thirds of residents wish to dismiss and replace a land maintenance company. We must also consider the more traditional factors and how they can be more easily switched. I stress that the Government agrees entirely with the committee when it describes the matter as a “very complex issue”. My colleague Fergus Ewing and I will keep the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Justice Committee informed of the Government’s thinking on the matter.

Many issues remain to be resolved at stage 2. I again offer the Government’s services to assist the member in charge of the bill to ensure that we get it right at stages 2 and 3 so that the bill achieves everything we all wish it to.

17:20

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2010

In the same item of business