Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
14
Parties on record
2,095,827
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,095,827 contributions in session S6, 11 May 2026 – 10 Jun 2026. Latest 30 days: 2,655. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 09 Jun 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Committee

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee 03 May 2023

03 May 2023 · S6 · Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Item of business
New Petitions
Property Factors (PE2006)
That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE2006, which was lodged by Ewan Miller, is on reviewing and simplifying the legislation in relation to the dismissal of property factors. Forgive me for the slightly complicated introduction as I speak to the petition. To clarify a jargon term for the benefit of anybody listening, property factors manage the maintenance and repair of common property and communal areas in flats and housing estates on behalf of the home owners and residents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors, or to introduce regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal, which is a free dispute resolution service, powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors. In his submission, the petitioner, as the chair of a local residents association, explains his experience of a struggle to dismiss a property factor. He argues that the legal framework around the process is complex and makes the dismissal of property factors unreasonably difficult. The SPICe briefing explains that dismissal of property factors can, indeed, be a convoluted process, as the relevant legislation is complicated and needs to be read in conjunction with the title deeds of a particular estate. There can also be complicated legal questions on whether conditions in title deeds are enforceable. As a result, it may often be necessary to seek legal advice. Court actions may also be necessary if a dispute between home owners and a property factor cannot be resolved. Of course, all that can be quite an expensive consideration for those involved. The briefing notes various inquiries into the system over the years, particularly in relation to landowning maintenance companies, which are property factors that own the land that they maintain—normally, open spaces on housing estates—and operate in a particularly complex legal environment. In 2013, the Scottish Government stated: “doing nothing is not an option, given the concerns in this area”. At the same time, it indicated a preference to prepare a voluntary code of practice on dismissing and replacing landowning maintenance companies rather than to legislate. However, the code is yet to be introduced and, on 30 June 2022, Ash Regan MSP, the then Minister for Community Safety, responded to a parliamentary question on the timeframe, saying that the Government had prepared a draft code and planned to seek the views of stakeholders before it proceeded with publication. It should be noted that the new code is intended to cover only landowning factors. With regard to non-landowning factors, the Scottish Government, in its submission, states that it has “no plans to amend the legislation” and highlights that the current regulations require factors to provide home owners with “clear information” on the dismissal process. As a constituency MSP, I have come across this issue and have found the whole business almost impenetrable. It is extraordinarily difficult, even for residents associations that are dealing with factors, to be confident that they can proceed, as they are confronted with what are sometimes quite threatening suggestions of the costs for which they may be liable. Given the period over which the issue has been raised and the comprehensive lack of progress, I wonder what colleagues think.

In the same item of business