Response 844775615

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.
Our factor is useless in every way. Emails go unanswered and they obviously work hand in glove to appoint their own workmen who get way with doing nothing. They ignore everything thrown at them by us poor homeowners. The powers of the code are routinely ignored strategically by these people. More needs to be done to reign in their grasp on poor homeowners.

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 text is unclear and ambiguous

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 eighth theme should be a quick and speedy not say legal ability to fire your factor which by law they cannot ignore as ours has done. They threaten and bully and this has to be legally stopped.

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).
There should be more redress in a shorter time frame for homeowners.

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.
All factors should provide the same information in the same format

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).
the communications should be standardised across all factors with bills and expectations easily comparable.

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?

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?

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).
The homeowner should be able to get a competitive quote and if it is better than the factors then the factor should have to take the quote form the homeowners.

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).
Again if maintenance is not satisfactory and the homeowners have a preference in maintenance company then the factor must change to the referred maintenance company/schedule or crew. The factor should not have the right of veto.

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).
The time to answer form the factor should be diminished and the non -reply within two weeks would give homeowners the ability to choose a different factor and any costs in doing so will be borne by the defaulting factor.

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

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

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

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.
The factor our building has routinely ignores emails/letters and entreaties to act and clearly appoint contracts close to them....you could even say corruptly. Everyone I know with factors has experience of "lost emails" "lost letters". They just lie and say they did not receive anything you send them. They waltz round the current code without a care. If they "did not receive it" they do not recognise the complaint or time scale. Even registered letters they say were signed for by someone else and they do not have it. The regulations must be much stricter. Most often rudeness and strategically "absent" directors are the order of the day as you are passed form pillar to post. The director=rs should be fined and struck off in the new draft document of their firm does not meet the code.

About You

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Organisation