Chamber and committees

Is the minister confident that, since the single open call, the Government finally has a comprehensive register of all buildings that are affected by the Grenfell-type combustible cladding?

Hazel, would you like to comment?

When local authorities are researching their individual MATHLR figures, they are doing their housing needs and demand assessments locally. Do you have a view as to how comprehensive those assessments are when it comes to reaching the figure that they then propose?

Given the slippage in local development plans coming forward, do you think that it is important to reintroduce the presumption in favour of sustainable development in policy 16(f)? Would you call for that?

Does anyone else want to talk about the impact of the MATHLR figures?

What impact has the establishment of the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement in NPF4 had on the identification and availability of land for housing that is ready to develop on?

My second question is more general and is on housing delivery. I go back to Kevin Murphy again. Will it be possible to deliver more housing under NPF4 than would have been possible under the previous regime?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments that the timescale might be restrictive, but residents who have been experiencing unsatisfactory factors have had a Government commitment previously. There have not been any updates to the voluntary code or legislation since 2013. How long should we expect that work to take before recommendations are seen and felt by residents?

We have heard clearly from the cabinet secretary and other members that this is a common problem across Scotland. As the convener said, a quarter of properties across Scotland have some kind of factoring arrangement. The difficulty that has arisen is that, where home owners are not getting the level of service that they expect—where they are paying for an entirely substandard service—the customer service is deplorable to the point that, in response to complaints, home owners are either stonewalled and met with silence or factoring companies, acknowledging the power imbalance, just say, “Well, there’s nothing you can do about it”. That is a direct quotation that constituents with a bad experience of factoring arrangements have heard from poorly performing factoring companies, which know that, in legal terms, it is so hard for residents to remove a factor that they just do not care. It cannot be fair that a factoring company can give up a contract and have an alternative factor appointed with no consultation or even awareness on the part of residents who pay for it.

Pam Duncan-Glancy raised an example in Cambuslang, where the first time that residents found out that a new factoring company had been appointed to maintain the common areas was when they received their first bill from that company. It cannot be fair that the factoring companies can be changed with no limit, but residents need to get together, hold a public meeting, and get agreement through a vote of more than 50 per cent of residents before a factor sits up and take notice.

I do not intend to press amendment 507 at this point, but I plan to bring a suite of amendments at stage 3. I hope that the Government has heard loud and clear from members around the table the real desire for change to factoring arrangements. The status quo is simply not an option. Residents have waited for a long time for change from the Government, but it has not been forthcoming. I therefore hope to work with the Government between stages 2 and 3 to give residents a more solid list of the changes that we would like to see to support them.

I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 507.

Amendment 507, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 387 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 not moved.

Amendments 388 to 392 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 509 to 512, 415, 513, 504 to 506, 514 and 476 not moved.

Section 51 agreed to.

After section 51

Colleagues, I hope that you will bear with me as I go through the fairly lengthy and technical list of amendments in this group.

I do not need to quote the Competition and Markets Authority’s conclusion that there was a “significant consumer detriment” in the private management of housing estates in Scotland to illustrate the point that I am attempting to make with my proposals to amend factoring legislation in Scotland. Nor do I need to raise the petitions that have been lodged in the Parliament by frustrated members of the public. I am sure that, in order to understand the situation, members need only look at their inboxes—if they are anything like mine, they will show that members have been contacted by many private housing estate residents who are entirely frustrated and deeply unhappy with their relationship with their factor. We have known for a long time that the balance of power in factoring relationships is skewed in favour of corporate interests. Back in 2011, my colleague Patricia Ferguson introduced a member’s bill, which is now the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011, to regulate factors. Fifteen years later, with more than 350 factors on the register and only three ever having been removed for a breach of the code of conduct, it is clear that although the 2011 act was a good start, much still needs to be done to bring more fairness to those relationships.

The Government has agreed that that is the case, and, going back as far as 2013, has been promising a code of conduct for land maintenance companies. The reason why the code has never been produced is not that there are too many legal complications or that the arguments for the code have been found to be wrong; it is, the Government has said, that it has other things to prioritise. Therefore, while constituents and colleagues have been living with these expensive and unfair factoring relationships, the Government has deprioritised work in the area, which is why I lodged my amendments. The factoring system in Scotland is not fair, and we should not wait another 15 years to look at further change. Through the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I have therefore proposed a number of substantive changes to the 2011 act, which, along with changes that my colleagues propose in their amendments, would rebalance the power in the relationship towards home owners.

I appreciate the work that you have done, convener, to ensure that home owners will be able to remove factors more easily, and I intend to support your amendments in this group if you move them. I also support the Government’s amendments in this area, and I acknowledge its attempt to make removal of a factor from the register easier.

I ask colleagues to support the amendments in the group that have been lodged by Sarah Boyack and Pam Duncan-Glancy, which will allow home owners to take a group action against factors to the First-tier Tribunal housing and property chamber in order to stand in solidarity with one other against corporate interests. That will also allow local authorities to adopt amenities on public housing estates. I have included an alternative to that approach, which would make adoption by local authorities mandatory, as was recommended by the CMA.

My amendments in this area all deal with increasing transparency and power for home owners. I would require all factors to publish their written statement of services with the home owners they are acting on behalf of. I would also require them to publish information about how much the services that they provide cost, and how much they have charged for services that they have carried out in previous years. I am also asking factors to let home owners know if they intend to sell their contract of services to another company. To me, it seems like a fairly base-level requirement of any contract of service that you are able to see what you have signed up for, what you are being charged for, who you have a contract with and what the services cost.

As the amendments are about rebalancing power away from the factor towards the home owner, I have also lodged amendments that provide more enforcement powers for the First-tier Tribunal against factors that have been found to be in contravention of the code of conduct. My amendments would allow the tribunal itself to remove factors from the register and to provide home owners with monetary compensation for the bad service that they have received.

I have set in place mechanisms for gathering data on the performance of factors, which, apart from anecdotal information from home owners across Scotland who have contacted me with their stories, is currently extremely scarce. It is important that there should be a record of the performance of factors, not least in order for ministers to carry out a proper review of factoring legislation, which is clearly overdue for reform.

I have listened to my constituents and to the many home owners who have been in touch with me to set out their issues with factoring in Scotland. I know that the law needs changed and that the regulation of factors needs to be tightened up to ensure that home owners in Scotland get a fairer deal.

Through amendment 415, my colleague Sarah Boyack highlights the fact that the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 is now almost 15 years old. It has become clear that there is still an imbalance of power between factors and the home owners on whose behalf they work. Citizens across Scotland have worked hard to bring factors to account, and they face odds that are stacked against them. One way of evening the odds is to make a slight change to the legislation to allow home owners to bring, as a group, rather than individually, complaints against factors that are suspected of breaches of the code of conduct. It is common knowledge that people become more powerful against corporate interests when they are enabled to work together, supporting one another. Amendment 415 allows groups of home owners to stand together and take collective action against the corporate interests that may well be balanced against them. It is meant to be part of a package of measures set out in the bill, updating the 2011 act and ensuring that factors’ interests are strictly regulated while home owners’ rights are protected where relationships go wrong.

I am aware of the length of time that it has taken for the Government to take action to bring forward changes to factoring legislation, following a petition that was lodged a few years ago. Ms Boyack acknowledges the Government’s assurance that action will be taken to strengthen the legislation, but she points out that those assurances have been heard repeatedly and we are still waiting for action. Ms Boyack fully intends to work in good faith with the Government to ensure that legally competent change can take place, but she asks colleagues to give due consideration to the length of time that we have already waited for change to happen.

My colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy lodged amendment 476 because it is important to be able to hold existing property factors to account. It is also vital that, when a factor has pulled out or been dismissed and a suitable alternative cannot be found, residents should not be left in limbo. It can be difficult to source an alternative property factor in Glasgow because fewer factoring companies operate in some areas, especially when older tenement buildings or smaller developments are involved.

What is more, when an alternative property factor is available, because there is little competition, some factors may increase prices due to having a monopoly. There is no legal cap on how much money a property factor can charge although, under Scottish property law, they must justify their cost as reasonable.

Amendment 476 would amend the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 to obligate local authorities to take responsibility for land when a factor has pulled out or been dismissed and a suitable alternative cannot be found. The amendment stipulates that a local authority would be able to charge a “reasonable” fee, which could be set out in regulations by the Scottish ministers. The amendment would ensure that home owners are not left in limbo without a factor and that they would not be subjected to extortionate prices through no fault of their own.

The entire suite of amendments in the property factors grouping speak to home owners’ difficulties in being able to challenge service, costs and competition in relation to the provision of grounds maintenance and other issues that exist in common areas around their properties. I have supported groups of residents who have had to jump through a myriad of legal hoops to kick out an underperforming factor and find a replacement, either from their local authority or another alternative.

It is long overdue that we look at this area of law and make it easier for home owners to take control over the common areas that they are responsible for through their title deeds, and to challenge the factors that, in some cases, provide a substandard service.

I move amendment 507.