Companies House records detailed below indicate that accounts should have been filed no later than 30th July 2009.

In a meeting attended by the Editor of Planning Watch UK,  in a private capacity, with Neil Cameron of Tulloch Homes and Richard Hartland, Head of Planning, Highland Council, on Thursday last, Mr Middleton,  Managing Director Greenbelt Group Ltd.,  continued to state that it was business as usual, giving no indication of the threat to the Greenbelt Group Ltd., company.

Thousands of home owners throughout the UK are tied to maintenance contracts with this company,  put in place by developers and signed off  by council planning authorites as “fit for purpose”,  with both UK and Scottish Government continuing to refuse to put consumer protection regulations in place demanded by home owners.

Complaints have been made to Trading Standards,  a number of Police Forces, numerous Members of Parliament, both MP’s and MSP’s and directly to the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing MSP.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have indicated that they seem to think that the Maintenance industry concerned should regulate itself and the Office of Fair Trading continues to sit on the fence, despite receiving numerous complaints from many different areas of the UK.

Surely it is now time for MP’s and MSP’s to collectively take action to represent the electorate who have elected  representataives to protect the interests of their communities?

Editor

Notes:

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish National Party

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish Government bio:

Fergus was first elected in 1999 as the MSP for Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber. He was re-elected in 2003 and again in the 2007 elections. Prior to being elected he ran his own law practice and developed SNP policy on small business as well as serving on the national executive of the SNP.

He is the son of Winnie, formerly the MSP for Highlands and Islands and MEP for Scotland, and brother of Annabelle, formerly MP for Perth.

His constituency is the second largest in Scotland, and is about 5 times larger than greater London which has around 90 MPs. Fergus campaigns on a wide variety of matters of vital importance to the area.
He seeks to represent everyone, irrespective of their own political views, and is keen to try to offer help to all constituents when they seek it.

***************************

Herald Scotland:

Policy on open spaces unresolved

By Leanna MacLarty – Press and Journal

EFFORTS by Aberdeenshire Council to prevent a land maintenance company from gaining control of public open spaces has received a mixed response from housing developers.

The local authority wrote to all big developers in the north-east asking them to reconsider transferring land to the Greenbelt Group.

Councillors backed the move after the private firm received a string of complaints from Aberdeenshire residents about the quality of work being carried out.

Housing firms were asked to reconsider any agreement with the Greenbelt firm and discuss management of the land with the council instead.

Only seven of the 19 firms responded to the council, members of the infrastructure services committee heard yesterday.

One unnamed developer was happy to opt for local authority control but another raised concerns about the level of red tape and lack of resources that may be involved.

Councillors agreed that policy on the management of open space should be included in the upcoming local development plan which is currently out for consultation.

The local authority will have the opportunity to bid for maintenance contracts for public open spaces.

If a developer chooses not to work with the council, a bond must be lodged against satisfactory completion of landscaping work.

A letter from Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton acknowledged a problem with services last year and says that issues have been rectified.

“There is a group of residents intent on fighting Greenbelt but there is also a majority of residents satisfied with our arrangement,” he continues.

“Some of the land which has been in question does not even belong to Greenbelt and therefore Greenbelt is wrongly being accused of not undertaking its responsibilities.”

Head of planning and environmental services Christine Gore rejected the firm’s concerns about the “anti-competitive nature” of the council’s efforts.

“All we are saying is the council should be given the opportunity to bid for the work,” she said.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1269566

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

Published: 13/02/2009

A land management company which has received complaints about poor service from people across the north-east could be taken to a tribunal.

Paula Hoogerbrugge, who has led a campaign against the Greenbelt Group, is appealing for others who are dissatisfied about the firm’s service to come forward and consider launching a test case against it.

It comes after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) said contracts between land management companies and customers should be tested at the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

Greenbelt Group is the largest land management company in Scotland with some 24,000 customers. Two other companies exist, Scottish Woodlands and Ethical Maintenance, which have around 1,000 customers in total. The companies buy open spaces on developments and charge developers, residents, or a combination of the two, for their upkeep. But because the companies own the land, it can prove very difficult for residents to switch to a competitor.

The OFT has been in discussions with Consumer Focus Scotland, which has offered to support a group of residents who want to change their land maintenance provider.

An OFT report released yesterday said the test of law was “desirable” and added: “The OFT cannot test the law, this needs to be done by a group of homeowners. But of course the costs, uncertainty and difficulty obtaining legal advice may be a deterrent to those seeking to take such a case so we are pleased to say that Consumer Focus Scotland has agreed to take on a role to help facilitate a test of the legislation.”

Mrs Hoogerbrugge, who runs the Greenbelt Group Action website, said she had received complaints about the company’s services from 15 of the 16 estates it maintains in Aberdeenshire.

She said it was “wonderful” that Consumer Focus Scotland has offered its support and appealed to dissatisfied residents to come forward through the website so they can mount a test case.

Carol Kidd, who lives on the Kirkstyle estate at Kemnay, has complained to Greenbelt about its “sporadic” service in the past and refused to pay its charges. She said Greenbelt were “modern-day cowboys”, adding: “It would be great if someone took them to the tribunal.”

Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton said last night: “We broadly welcome the OFT report and its principle recommendation that Consumer Focus Scotland should support home owners in bringing forward a test case applying legislation which may allow owners to switch land maintenance company.

This is an avenue we have been pursuing with a small number of our customers and we believe the involvement of Consumer Focus Scotland will aid that process.

We are happy to cooperate with Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Government in whatever way they feel is appropriate.”

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

Published: 01/08/2008

The Scottish Government has been asked to launch an investigation into north-east residents’ claims that a factor has taken money for work it has not adequately carried out.

Aberdeenshire councillor Martin Ford said he has been contacted by a “number of people” about the Greenbelt Group, which maintains open spaces in housing estates across the north-east.

A resident of the Redcloak estate at Stonehaven had claimed the company has not cut the grass there in more than seven months, despite having already been paid to do so.

The company disputes the time period, but admits there have been problems with a few of its contractors over the last three to four weeks.

Residents at an estate at Newmachar had also complained about the company halving the frequency of its visits.

In a letter to Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, Mr Ford said: “It appears that there is a widespread problem of poor or no grounds maintenance when the Greenbelt Group are responsible.

“This seems to be the case both when residents are paying on an annual basis and when the developer has paid a lump sum on completion of the development.”

The Liberal Democrat member for East Garioch added: “I have been a councillor for nine years and I have been aware of recurring problems involving the Greenbelt Group.

“I would ask you to look into the problems surrounding the operations of this company. I would also ask you to examine whether we can revert to the situation prior to 1992 where it was almost invariably the case that public open space passed to the local council.

“In my experience, the local council provides the only reliable and sustainable maintenance solution for public open space.”

Greenbelt’s managing director Alex Middleton said problems with contractors over the last three weeks have caused the company difficulties in the north-east.

He said: “Greenbelt has had problems in the north-east and are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible. We will take a look at the particular problems and value for money.

“We are committed to the sites in the north-east and are committed to giving a good service.”

Press and Journal article link

Gordon Banks MP has been supporting residents in their dispute with Greenbelt.

CAMPAIGNERS on a Menstrie housing estate have welcomed support from the Scottish Government in their bid to oust land management company Greenbelt.

Angry residents say the company is not doing its job properly and recently 251 of the estate’s 300 residents signed a petition to get rid of Greenbelt.

However, the petition was rejected by the firm who said it would carry on to maintain the land around the estate, as was agreed with developer Gladedale.

But an email from the Scottish Government has now been sent to a homeowner on an estate in Livingston, also managed by Greenbelt, stating that under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 owners within an estate can “dismiss a manager and appoint another” without applying to a Lands Tribunal.

Mike Marriot, who is leading the Menstrie campaign, welcomed the support from the Scottish Government saying it proved the residents were well within their legal rights to submit their petition.

He said their ultimate goal was for Clackmannanshire Council to take over the maintenance of the land.

“We signed the petition in March and, since then, homeowners have been bombarded with letters and demands from Greenbelt Group, saying they don’t recognise this,” said Mike.

“We very much welcome the Scottish Government’s backing in this situation, and hope it will encourage both Gladedale and Greenbelt Group to see sense.”

The email also informed homeowners that Government guidance on the management of open spaces was republished last month and now no longer names Greenbelt Group as a suitable provider for the long-term care of open spaces in Scotland.

Gordon Banks MP has been supporting the residents in their dispute with Greenbelt and has been heading an All Party Working Group in Westminster looking at land management companies.

He said, “It is good news that the Scottish Executive confirmed that the action the residents took in their dispute with Greenbelt has been confirmed as the correct course of action.

“Up until now Greenbelt has tried to ignore the actions of the residents at Menstrie Mains and I hope that it will now take on board the strong legal footing on which the residents have based their campaign, and understand that they no longer want Greenbelt to supply land management services.

“I hope that both the Greenbelt and Gladedale can find a constructive way to bring this long standing problem to a solution which meets the aims and objectives of Menstrie residents.”

However, Greenbelt says that the information on the email from the Scottish Government is out-dated and that the Title Deeds Act is a complicated piece of legislation which residents do not necessarily understand the full implications of.

Managing director of Greenbelt, Alex Middleton, told the Advertiser that following the petition a circular was sent to all residents to give them help and guidance, and that Greenbelt has never purported to offer legal advice to residents but said they should seek independent legal advice.

He went on, “Greenbelt has never considered itself to be a manager of the land but, in fact, the owner of the land, which is a significant difference to what is being said by other parties.

“Soundbites have been taken from a very complicated piece of legislation which needs to be understood as a whole and is very technical.

“There is an agreement in place between ourselves and the developer and that will continue.

“We are obliged to manage and maintain the land and residents are obliged to contribute fully and equally.”

A spokesperson for Gladedale added, “We are aware of the issues between the residents and Greenbelt and are hopeful that an amicable solution can be reached between the two parties.”

Link to original article

By Gillian Bell Press and Journal

Published: 30/07/2008

North-east residents claim they have paid an independent company thousands of pounds to maintain open spaces – but that work has not been done for “more than seven months”.

People at the Redcloak estate at Stonehaven are among thousands who are contractually obliged to pay Glasgow-based Greenbelt Group for services.

Last night, Greenbelt blamed contractors for the problem, saying it had explained issues to residents.

Householders at Newmachar have already complained that Greenbelt halved the frequency of its service, leaving them with “unkempt” public areas.

Ian Matthews, of Redcloak Park, Stonehaven, has paid Greenbelt an annual fee of around £90 to keep the open areas tidy.

Mr Matthews said there were around 100 houses on the estate, each of which paid a similar charge.

He claimed: “The residents of Redcloak have not had any maintenance at all this year.

“This lovely area has become an embarrassment. I have contacted them consistently since May but nobody ever gets back to me.”

Carol Kidd, who chairs the residents’ association at Kirkstyle Farm Estate, at Kemnay, claimed Greenbelt had not cut the grass there for more than six weeks.

“Even Place of Origin, which was opened by the Duke of Kent with great fanfare in 2006, has been allowed to go to ruin,” she added.

Mrs Kidd, of Wilson Place, said she contacted Greenbelt a number of weeks ago to ask why the work was not being done and received a letter blaming problems with the contractor, Inverness-based R. Sleigh Landscapes.

The contractor’s solicitor, Timothy Thomas, of Ledingham Chalmers, said Greenbelt owed his client, Henry Sleigh, a “very large sum”, thought to be about £100,000.

“We have been demanding payment for some months now and have been told by their solicitors that they have had cash-flow problems.

“They have said recently they are disputing some of the work done, but it is certainly not all.”

Greenbelt has now replaced Sleigh with another contractor, but the problems persist, according to Mrs Kidd. A number of other estates in the north-east are also thought to be having problems with Greenbelt, including at Provost Clemo Drive at Insch, the Hallforest estate at Kintore, Meadowlands at Westhill and Leddach Grange estate at Elrick.

People living in the Rosewell Park estate at Westhill and the Greenacres-Pitblae estate at Fraserburgh have also reported difficulties.

A website called Greenbelt Group Action has been set up by dissatisfied customers.

Greenbelt’s managing director Alex Middleton admitted one contractor had not been paid, but said it was because of a “performance issue, and it is quite right we should do that”.

“In one or two cases we have had problems with contractors and we have explained that to our customers,” he added.

He refused to offer the residents of Redcloak at Stonehaven a refund and said residents of Greenbelt-maintained estates were “contractually obliged” to pay.

“There is a need on one or two sites to improve,” he said, adding that it was a priority.

Mr Middleton seems to have his own particular unique definition of contractual law and frquently seems to demonstrate that he thinks his company can collect payments and not deliver the contracted services…
Editor

The fight to achieve legislation change continues and ever increasing numbers of MP’s and MSP’s are becoming worldly aware of their constituency growing problems.

Many thanks to all MP’s and MSP’s who have been working to achieve changes in consumer protection legislation.

Westminster Hall debates – Wednesday, 6 February 2008

What is Westminster Hall?

New Home Buyers

All Westminster Hall debates on 6 Feb 2008 « Previous Westminster Hall debate Next Westminster Hall debate »

4:00 pm

Mark Lazarowicz

(PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to raise a number of issues concerning the difficulties experienced by many people buying newly built houses or flats. Those problems are legion. They can range from houses not being built on time or not being made available to the purchaser, sometimes for years after the date on which they were meant to be; defects in the building work that are not repaired in spite of repeated requests and demands from the purchasers; problems with the estate as a whole; and problems with the property management companies associated with new build developments. Those problems often affect those buying new build homes at the time when they are most under pressure, owing to the personal and financial stress involved in buying a new home.

I am raising this matter today, because a large number of new build properties—mainly, but not exclusively flats—are being built, or have been built recently, in my constituency. Over a number of years, I have been approached by constituents who have had problems with new build housing such as those that I have described. Indeed, I first raised this issue in Parliament in April 2002, less than a year after I was first elected. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the matter again, but the fact that I am obliged to do so illustrates that much action is still required to deal with a problem that has been raised with me on many occasions in my constituency. However, consumer organisations are also concerned and see it as a problem affecting the entire UK.

As I said, particular issues have been raised in my constituency, and I shall describe in more detail a particular case raised with me recently. However, I emphasise that the problem exists throughout the UK. Extensive research on the matter has recently been conducted by the consumer group Which?, the National Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council. It shows that as many as 90 per cent. of those who buy new build homes are left with snagging problems, such as faulty wiring, badly fitting doors, leaking windows or more serious problems. More than a quarter of new build property developments are described by their purchasers as being of poor quality.

As I have said, this issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions, over a number of years. However, the particular case that led to me raising the matter today was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who lives in a development called Corinthian Quay, undertaken by Elphinstone builders, on Lower Granton road in my constituency. I shall quote briefly from her email in which she first raised the matter with me shortly before Christmas:

"I would like to draw your attention to another matter that has been a source of constant worry and stress to me for the past 2 and half years. I bought a new apartment off plan in Feb 2005 and have had nothing but problems with the builders – they have been very uncommunicative and unhelpful… We have been lied to on numerous occasions and been told that the build would be ready again and again when it was obvious it would not. We sold our properties on the strength of what they told us and ended up at in rented accommodation for 8 months (at great expense)".

The email continues:

"when one thing is fixed we find another. Many of the other residents have experienced horrendous problems eg sewage coming up through baths and sinks onto carpets, ceilings collapsing and many other problems. The resident above us is currently experiencing his 4th water leak and water is seeping into our apartment".

I shall not read her e-mail in full, because it would take too long. However, the crux of the matter comes in her final comments:

"We feel that we have more rights buying a packet of crisps than a £285K luxury apartment. We have paid the builder and we are not getting what we paid for. We moved to a new build so we would not have any problems – we now have more problems with this build than we have had with all the older properties we bought put together!"

That highlights one constituent’s problems, but, as my research shows, the same problems—although perhaps not as bad as in that development—affect many people in many parts of the country.

My constituent’s comments about having more rights when buying a packet of crisps than when buying an new house touch on one the central problems in dealing with the issue. For many people, a new home—possibly a new build home—will be the biggest purchase of their lives. However, practical remedies are not available to them as consumers to enable them to deal with problems that can arise when buying such a property. That contrasts with the simplest and cheapest items that one might buy in a corner shop, when consumers benefit from legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which, of course, does not apply to new build homes. As a result, consumers have fewer legal rights than if they bought a packet of crisps in a local shop.

One problem is that the purchase of houses or flats, whether new build or older properties, is covered by property law. There are differences between Scotland and England, but the general point is still a reasonable one. Property law is governed essentially by the rule of buyer beware, which gives consumers much less protection than they would have if they enjoyed legal rights similar to those that apply under the 1979 Act.

Add your comment

 Jim Devine (Livingston, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Has he had difficulties with factoring companies as a result of such sales? We have had major difficulties with companies such as Greenbelt Group Ltd and Ross and Liddle taking constituents of mine to court. They were charging up to £400 a year for a service that they did not provide.

Add your comment

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Problems can arise with factoring companies or property management companies—or however they want to describe themselves. Certainly constituents of mine have raised such concerns, although the case that I just referred to did not involve that problem. However, it is certainly an indication of the kind of problems that arise for many people living in new build flats in particular. Action needs to be taken, perhaps at a devolved level in my hon. Friend’s case, or at a UK level. That problem needs to be attended to.

On the extension of consumer protection to the buyer of a new build property, the problem was recognised by the Housing Improvement Task Force set up by the Scottish Executive some years ago. In 2003—five years ago, which illustrates part of the difficulty—it reported:

"We believe that caveat emptor"—

the buyer beware principle—

"may need to be qualified in respect of new build developments, where the sale is not between two private individuals and where the builder is in a similar position to other commercial providers of goods and services who are expected to comply with consumer protection legislation".

That highlights another problem faced by those buying new build properties. In effect, they must accept the developer’s terms, or they do not get the house. They have no alternative or room to negotiate for a better deal.

The developer will normally have a standard builders missive or contract. In theory, in some circumstances, the purchaser might be able to withdraw from a contract to buy the property and get their money back, but that is not normally a realistic option in practice. It is not much use if people have had to wait for years to get their property, and then they find that their only option is to try to cancel the deal, dump all their furniture in the street and start all over again. That is not a realistic option for most people who buy new build property, or indeed any property, even though it might apply in theory in some cases.

We need changes to the law to give people who buy newly built houses or flats much greater consumer protection; and as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, it is a UK-wide problem, because consumer protection is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. Aspects of it relate to devolved legislation, but the consumer protection aspect requires action at UK level. Although I refer to cases in Scotland and in my constituency, the problem applies UK-wide, and the consumer organisations have requested a change in the law at UK level, which I certainly support.

There must be changes in the law, such as providing people who buy new build flats or houses rights similar to those under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. However, there must also be important changes in practice, too. Many organisations have agued that the standard new build missive must be much fairer to buyers. For example, there should be a specific entry date, rather than a vague entry date that is not worth the paper that it is written on.

My colleague, Helen Eadie MSP, recently submitted a Bill to the Scottish Parliament designed to bring about precisely that change to the law to ensure that there is a specific entry date for new property. However, she has been advised—whether correctly is open to discussion—that because of the consumer protection provisions, it is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, so she can no longer pursue it as a private Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Again, the situation indicates that we need action not only at a Scottish level, but at a UK level. We need action to ensure that, when people in Scottish constituencies are affected, the two levels of government work together to find a solution. Furthermore, there must be better self-regulation by the housing industry, as the consumer organisations have said. I do not have time to go into that issue, but it is another part of the solution.

Having made some suggestions for change, I recognise that other proposals might be introduced to deal with the situation. I first raised the issue almost six years ago, and there has certainly been a great deal of talk, but not much action. Recently, however, the Office of Fair Trading has begun an investigation into the issue—an important step that I hope will result in an improvement in the situation for people who have such problems with new build property.

The first round of consultation by the OFT has concluded, but I have been told that it would welcome the submission of evidence of such problems. I shall certainly be submitting to the OFT examples from my constituency, and if any of my constituents watching the debate decide to send me information, I shall submit that, too. However, I should ask that people in other constituencies do not send me information, because when I raised the issue previously, I received correspondence from throughout the UK. That illustrates the problem, but the evidence should nevertheless go to the individual’s MP.

The OFT is carrying out a study, so I am sure that the Minister will tell us that he wants to wait for its report before the Government come to a conclusion on the matter, which I understand. However, I ask him to assure us that, when the OFT reports, the Government will act urgently to make changes to give proper consumer protection to people who buy newly built homes and flats and who find that they have such problems. In particular, as an MP representing a Scottish constituency, I ask him to ensure that the appropriate UK Departments get together with the appropriate Scottish Departments, the relevant consumer organisations and legal and trade interests to ensure that the action that I have called for is implemented throughout the UK.

As I have indicated, apparently, this involves some complex areas of law, which may have caused the delay in taking action in Scotland in particular, but we cannot wait too much longer for action—not much longer at all, I hope. The number of new build developments is increasing in most constituencies—certainly in mine and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) more than in others. Therefore, we cannot wait for action indefinitely. We want it soon, and I should like a commitment from the Minister that the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem and that they will take early action, including on the issues that overlap the Scottish and UK levels of government. Co-operation between the various interests should resolve that overlap, and I am sure the Minister agrees that it should not be an excuse for inactivity.

Add your comment

4:14 pm

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on obtaining the debate and on his assiduousness in pursuing the issue for the length of time that he has. It is clearly important to his constituency and to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) , given his intervention. 

I listened in particular when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith read out that extract detailing the frustration of his constituent. No one who has ever bought a home could fail to be sympathetic to the frustration that his constituent has endured. My hon. Friend raised two broad areas of concern for new home buyers: snagging and the rectification of faults, and delays in completion. He made specific requests about the OFT study, and I can assure him that, once we have seen the study, we will ensure that its conclusions are discussed with officials in the Scottish Executive. I welcome my hon. Friend’s writing to the OFT directly, and I shall bring his remarks to the OFT’s attention.

Add your comment

Jim Devine (Livingston, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Will my hon. Friend the Minister also include the role of factoring companies in his discussions with the OFT? Companies such as Greenbelt Group take over the common land and own it in perpetuity, so regardless of whether they provide a good service, people have to pay and the companies have a monopoly, which is totally unacceptable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

Add your comment

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I am happy to draw them to the OFT’s attention. I should also be happy if my hon. Friend would like to meet separately to discuss them.

There are already some initiatives regarding the two areas of concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith discussed. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has introduced a revised finalling procedure, under which lenders will not release the mortgage funds on a property until a satisfactory final inspection has been completed and confirmation has been given that a full new home warranty will be in place on or before the entry date. It follows a similar initiative in England and Wales that was successful in reducing the number of failed pre-handover inspections. There have also been discussions between the Law Society of Scotland and Homes for Scotland—the umbrella organisation for the home building industry in Scotland—about standard terms for the builders missives, the conveyancing contract.

Those initiatives will be helpful in addressing the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, but he will recognise that such matters fall within the purview of the Scottish Executive. I have no doubt that the Executive will be interested in what the OFT has to say. I hope that he recognises that I am not in a position to comment at length on matters that fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I repeat that I will ensure that the outcome of the OFT study is discussed with Executive officials.

Add your comment

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot act on matters within the purview of the Scottish Executive, but I reiterate that Helen Eadie MSP has been advised by the legal officers of the Scottish Parliament that she cannot introduce legislation on an entry date, because it falls within UK reserved competence. I hope that the Minister’s Department will consider that before it assumes that it is a Scottish Executive responsibility. I am concerned that we could end up with years of argument between the two levels of government about who is responsible, and we do not want that to happen. I hope that he will ensure that his Department notes that there is some argument about where responsibility lies.

Add your comment

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I note my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I have heard his point about the discussions that have taken place in Scotland between Helen Eadie MSP and the Scottish Executive. I would be happy to receive direct representations on those discussions from either my hon. Friend or Ms Eadie herself.

My hon. Friend also mentioned a matter on which I do have specific and immediate responsibility for consumer protection: the Sale of Goods Act 1979, from which, as he rightly said, the purchase of homes is excluded. I hope that I can clarify why that is so, but I first wish to indicate again our welcome for the work that the OFT is currently engaging in. It is examining the home buyer’s purchasing experience and the fitness for purpose of new homes. It will consider the consumer protection and redress that is available, including the consumer legislation that currently applies, and whether changes are necessary. We expect that study to report in the autumn. My hon. Friend asked for early action, but he made an assumption that I do not wish to make. However, I assure him that we will give early consideration to the outcome of the report, particularly any recommendation that falls to my Department.

On the Sale of Goods Act, there is not an exceptional emission or exclusion for housing. There is a much broader pattern and structure of how property law, covering land and buildings, is recognised. The law relating to property is distinct, forming a separate body of legislation and jurisprudence, reflecting the importance and value of transactions in land or property. As my hon. Friend will no doubt recognise, for transactions in land, it is particularly necessary that there should be clarity about exactly when ownership passes from one person to another and what is, and is not, included in any transfer. Property law has developed distinctively to meet those needs. Consumer law in general therefore does not apply to transactions in land or buildings, albeit with one significant exception.

Although consumer law and the statutory rights attached to consumer transactions do not generally apply to the purchase of a new home, it does not follow that the consumer is lacking in rights or redress when purchasing a new home. It is true that, on occasion, the buyer of a new home is in a weaker position than the builder. My hon. Friend may be aware of cases in which the developer has had standard terms prepared for the contract and not been willing to amend them. If there is unfairness in such standard terms, it can be addressed through the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Under those regulations, a term that is found to be unfair is not binding on the consumer, and the Office of Fair Trading can take action to have standard terms altered if there is a view that they are unfairly weighted against the interests of the consumer. The purchaser of a new home therefore has rights and redress if a contract is not properly performed.

The most used remedies under the Sale of Goods Act—the rejection of unsatisfactory goods by the purchaser or replacement by the vendor—are most unlikely to be appropriate for a dispute about the construction standards of a new house or flat. The contract can be annulled in extreme cases, but it is essentially tied to the property in question, and replacement with another house or flat is probably not realistic and may be undesirable for the buyer. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not surprising that the Sale of Goods Act remedies are not appropriate, because they were framed for quite different situations. As I have indicated, we have an open mind about the possibility that new rights could be created for the benefit of consumers if the existing balance of rights and redress is found to be unsatisfactory.

My hon. Friend mentioned the suggestion by the Housing Improvement Task Force that it might be necessary to amend the rule of caveat emptor in relation to new build homes. Of course, any new legal provision that confers rights or imposes implied terms will, in some sense, qualify the simple rule of caveat emptor. I have no difficulty in principle with that idea but, as I hope my hon. Friend will recognise, we will want to hear what the OFT has to say on that in its report.

I say again that I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s concerns and particularly to the views of his constituents who have written to him about their experiences of buying new homes. I hope that he recognises that the situation that he described—that someone has more rights buying a packet of crisps than buying a new home—is not accurate, but we understand the frustration of people who have had bad experiences with rogue builders. That is one reason why the OFT is conducting its market study.

I recognise the need for us here in London, in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, with our responsibility for consumer affairs as a reserved issue, to discuss the Scottish experience of the matter with the Scottish Executive. I have also offered to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston about the issue that he raised, and I am happy to receive representations from Helen Eadie or my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, about what Ms Eadie has discussed with the Scottish Executive.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.