Response 44159904

Back to Response listing

Part One - Impact of the Original Code of Conduct for Registered Property Factors

1. Do you think the original code of conduct for property factors has led to improvements in the quality of factoring services provided to homeowners by property factors?

Please select one item
The Code has made significant improvements
The Code has made some or slight improvements
Code has made no improvements
Or tick here if you are unsure
Please explain your answer below making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the original Code where applicable.
From our perspective we believe there have been improvements. We cannot comment on all factors only the improvements on our own service, however we would assume that there is a significant improvement with private factors adhering to the code of conduct and also having to register as a factor. There have been improvements raising the standard of our own factoring service. As a subsidiary Company of a housing association the code has now formalised the standards we had been providing within our factoring service. Improvements have also been made in our complaints handling procedures and improving communication and consultation with customers.

Part Two - Proposals on a draft ‘revised’ code of conduct for property factors

2. Does the Code’s introductory text clearly explain its purpose, who it applies to and the broader regulatory background?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your answer
The only addition I would suggest would be to point 2 under the dispute resolution section noting ‘A dispute resolution mechanism for homeowers to be used when the homeowner has exhausted their factor’s in-house complaints procedure’

3. There are currently seven themes featured in the Code. These are:

Please select one item
Keep the themes of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change the wording of the themes in the revised Code (as drafted)?
Propose any additional themes to the revised Code?
Remove any themes in the revised Code (as drafted)?
Or tick here if you are unsure
Please explain your answer.
The themes are clear and concise.

4a. Section 1 of the draft revised Code proposes the requirements for the provision of a written statement of service to homeowners and the information which should be included in the statement of service. Different requirements may apply depending on whether the land is owned by a group of homeowners or whether the land is owned by a land maintenance company or a party other than the group of homeowners.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 1 of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change any requirement(s) of Section 1 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
Under 1.2 (second item)
It states that a written statement should be issued within 4 weeks of the property factor being made aware of an impending change of ownership or the actual sale of the property. This should be changed to only include for the actual sale of the property. Some solicitors notify the factor at least 4 weeks in advance, however, we can only change over the properties once the sale date is concluded and confirmed by the solicitor so I do no believe that a 4 week deadline of an impending change is feasible.

Under 1.2 (third item)
This is an addition to issue a written statement annually to all homeowners. I do not agree with this if there are no changes to the services. If there are any changes to the services only at this point should a new written statement of services be sent out within 4 weeks.

4b. The Code sets the standards on what information should be included in the written statement a property factor must provide to homeowners however does not specifically prescribe a standard format and/or structure on how that written statement of service should appear.

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your answer.
A standardised document for all property factors should be provided and used to keep this uniformed under the code, therefore all factors will be following the same level of detail in the document.

5. Section 2 of the draft revised code proposes the minimum standards and requirements for how a property factor should communicate and consult with homeowners.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 2 of the revised Code (as drafted)
Change any requirement(s) of Section 2 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
Under 2.3
There should be an additional section stating the owner must provide their contact details, telephone number, contact email address.

In general this section would read better if points were summarised.

6. Section 3 of the draft revised code proposes the minimum standards and requirements for how a property factor should undertake any financial obligations it has with homeowners.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 3 of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change any requirement(s) of Section 3 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
Under 3.5
Factors have different methods of issuing invoices i.e. we operate 3 months in arrears therefore we can only issue accounts once our debit run has been carried out and not prior to the date of change in ownership. The code assumes all IT systems are able to provide this which is not the case.

7. Section 4 of the draft revised code proposes the minimum standards and requirements for a property factor to follow in circumstances where it is recovering debt from homeowners and/or informing other relevant homeowners of such action.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 4 of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change any requirement(s) of Section 4 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
This revised section is acceptable.

8. Section 5 of the draft ‘revised’ code proposes the minimum standards and requirements for a property factor to follow in circumstances where it is required to hold insurance and/or arrange insurance on behalf of homeowners.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 5 of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change any requirement(s) of Section 5 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
Insurance section is clear and concise

9. Section 6 of the draft revised code proposes the minimum standards and requirements for a property factor to follow in circumstances where it is arranging for repairs and maintenance to be undertaken.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 6 of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change any requirement(s) of Section 6 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
This section requires clarity on what the collateral warranty would involve?

10a. Section 7 of the draft revised code proposes the minimum standards/requirements for a property factor to follow in circumstances where it is handling and/or resolving complaints from homeowners.

Please select one item
Keep the requirements of Section 7 of the revised Code (as drafted)?
Change any requirement(s) of Section 7 of the revised Code?
Let us know if you are unsure?
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the draft revised Code (where applicable).
Under 7.6
Any complaint owners have with a previous factor must be resolved by that factor and not taken over to the new property factor to resolve. This description seems overly complicated and unclear. More clarity needs sought.

10b. It is recognised that property factors vary in organisation size and many have different internal structures, hierarchies and operating procedures. The draft revised Code currently requires a property factor to provide homeowners with a clear written complaints resolution procedure however does not specifically prescribe a standardised approach to complaint handling which should be followed by all property factors.

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your answer.
Each organisation should have their own procedure and process for handling complaints. .

11. Do you have any other comments on the draft revised code and its appendices i.e. glossary (as published as part of this consultation)?

The draft revised code may read better if summarised in sections and it would be easier to understand. We are aware this is a code of conduct for factors however an appendix to this is required which states owner occupiers responsibilities and what is expected of them i.e. maintaining their property by paying for common repairs/providing up to date details at all times/signing relevant documents/attending close meetings/not being abusive or threatening to staff etc.

Part Three - Proposed Modification Order

12. For the limited purposes described above, should a de-registered property factor, be required to comply with the Code, including property factor enforcement orders, despite removal from the register of property factors? Choose from the following options:

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

13. Should a three year time limit be introduced for homeowner applications to be initially lodged with the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber? Choose from the following options:

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your answer making reference to any alternative suggested timeframe or criteria (if applicable)?
Question 12 comments - The First-tier tribunal should handle any claims lodged if this was registered prior to a property factor being removed.


Question 13 Comments - There should be a 1 year time limit for complaints lodged to the First-tier Tribunal. 3 years is an unreasonable time frame for complaints to be lodged.

Part Four - Impact Assessments

14a. Are there any proposals in this consultation which have any financial, regulatory or resource implications for you and/or your business (if applicable)? Choose from the following options:

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your answer.
Issuing written statements on an annual basis regardless of any changes to services will have both a cost implication and a resource implication for our organisation. The changes to the Code and any additional information required to be added to written statements and issued again will also have a financial and resource implication. IT systems don’t always support the amount of information required and we have over 2,000 customers.

14b. Equalities

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

Part Five - Impact of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011

15. In addition to the Code, do you think the wider requirements of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 (2011 Act) has led to improvements in the regulation of property factors? Choose from the following options:

Please select one item
The 2011 Act has made significant improvements
The 2011 Act has made some or slight improvements
The 2011 Act has made no improvements
Let us know if you are unsure
Please explain your answer making reference to the relevant requirement(s) of the 2011 Act where applicable.
Overall there have been improvements made to factors providing factoring services especially private factors who had not previously been regulated. Factors now have a minimum standard to adhere to which should be implemented across the sector.

About You

What is your name?

Jackie Reilly

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Organisation

What is your organisation?

Partick Works Limited