Hansard

I recognise the intent behind many of the amendments in the grouping and I appreciate that difficulties are being experienced by some who are in the property factors system. As Mark Griffin mentioned, members will have knowledge of that from their constituency work, as do I.

However, the amendments that are proposed are very wide ranging and pick out a number of discrete topics across what is a complex and interconnected system. Although I am sympathetic to what members are trying to achieve and the constituency cases that I am sure lie behind many of the amendments, I am concerned about considering issues in isolation from one another and from the wider system. I am also mindful that we have not engaged widely with stakeholders on the issues.

Instead of working in a potentially piecemeal way, I would like to look at any issues in the round and engage with stakeholders to review the system in its entirety to identify what improvements can be made. I wish to take the time to do that work properly and would welcome members contributing to it, instead of pressing forward with the range of amendments that are before us today.

I begin with amendment 507, in the name of Mark Griffin, which would require additional information to be included as part of an application to be a registered property factor. Although I appreciate that the intent is to strengthen the application process, I am not clear on the value that such additional information would provide beyond what is already in the code of conduct, with which all registered property factors must comply, and what property factor enforcement orders already allow for. As those existing provisions appear to be operating as intended, I cannot support the amendment without hearing further from stakeholders on the issues.

I turn to the Government’s amendments in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 387 to 392 and 397 modify the existing property factor registration regime to make it work more coherently and effectively. In particular, they clarify when a property factor number is to be disclosed; adjust matters to be considered as part of the fit-and-proper-person test; expand powers to remove property factors from the property factor register when the factor no longer exists; clarify the duty to notify property factors who have been removed from the register in cases where that is not currently possible; require refusals and removals to be noted on the register; allow property factors to seek removal from the register; and confer additional enforcement powers. The amendments will improve the registration scheme and I urge members to support them so that improvements can be brought forward before the review that I mentioned earlier.

It is not clear how amendments 508 and 513, in the name of Mark Griffin, would benefit the system overall. Scottish ministers have the responsibility to assess whether applicants are fit and proper for registration, and consideration is based on all relevant circumstances. The First-tier Tribunal would not have access to the full range of material that is used to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to carry out property factoring, so amendment 508 would narrow the scope of the fit-and-proper-person test, which would have potentially negative implications for factors’ businesses and for home owners. I therefore cannot support the amendments without more understanding of what is behind them.

I turn to amendments 509 to 511, which relate to provision of certain information to home owners. It is my view that the code of conduct for property factors already caters for what the amendments propose. The code covers how fees, charges and works that have already been undertaken or are to be undertaken are handled and communicated, and how factors will co-operate with another factor to allow for a smooth transfer. Without hearing wider views, I am therefore unclear what the amendments would add to the requirements that are already in place. I cannot therefore support the amendments at this time.

On amendment 512, in the name of Mark Griffin, I note that it is already possible for individuals to search whether a property factor is registered to provide services in Scotland, who the property factor is for a certain property or area of land and the latest number of properties that a property factor manages. As already explained, amendment 390, in the name of Paul McLennan, would place a new duty on Scottish ministers to keep a note in the register of any refusal

“to enter a person in the register”

and of any removal from the register

“for the period of 3 years”,

which I hope will reassure Mr Griffin on the matter behind his amendment. Scottish ministers can provide guidance and publish information that they deem appropriate without the need for the amendment. For that reason, I do not support it.

I appreciate the aim of amendments 504 and 517, in the name of Ariane Burgess, but there are already means by which such attention is brought, in the form of evidence gathered by Scottish ministers through compliance monitoring activity, which can and is frequently informed by home owner reports, and by notice from the First-tier Tribunal that a property factor enforcement order has not been complied with. Without further discussion, it is therefore not clear what improvements the amendments would bring, so I cannot support them.

I turn to amendments 505 and 518, also in the name of Ariane Burgess. Amendment 505 would lower the current upper legal threshold that is required for property owners to dismiss a property manager and appoint someone else from “two thirds” to “a majority”,

“unless the title deeds ... provide a lower threshold”.

Existing provision is intended to ensure that title deeds do not impose an unreasonably high threshold to dismiss the manager, such as requiring a unanimous vote. Title deeds can, however, specify a lower threshold, such as a simple majority. When title deeds are silent, existing legislation provides a default rule that allows a simple majority to dismiss the manager.

When the Scottish Government last consulted on that issue in 2013, a majority of respondents did not favour reducing the threshold. Given the changes to the sector since then, it is important that we take time to look at the matter as part of a wider review, as I mentioned earlier. Removal of a property factor is, of course, the final step to address underperformance. So that we can better understand the issue, how it sits in the wider property factor system and any unintended consequences of the proposed changes, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move the amendments.

On amendment 506, in the name of Mark Griffin, I recognise, as I have said, that some users of the system are experiencing difficulties, and I have committed to working with members and stakeholders to consider those in the round, taking the time to do so properly. The amendment would drive too short a timeframe for work of that nature and set a particular scope before we have had time to consider matters. For that reason, I cannot support it, but I emphasise my offer to engage with members and stakeholders to look at the system in the round.