Factor issues in Scotland

missile

I am chair person for The Elmhill Owners Committee. We have collected votes from 50% owners to retender our factoring contract. Our factor has demanded our minutes of meeting and details for those who have voted. We are reluctant to disclose these and believe we are bound by GDPR, are we correct?

In a spirit of cooperation we have invited factor to appoint a third party to audit our records.

Any advice?

DoaM

How many owners voted? (Percentage - e.g. 80% of owners voted)

How many voted in favour? (Percentage - e.g. 50% voted in favour)

Example: Based on the above, and assuming 100 properties (to make things easy), 50% of 80% would mean only 40% of owners voted in favour ... I don't know if that would constitute a quorum.

I'm not sure about Scotland but I believe there are minimum requirements before making changes. (Although that may be for managing Agents rather than Residents Committees).

missile

Hi,
Thx for your prompt response.
Per Deed of Conditions - "a simple majority" i.e. 50%
There are 123 properties, i.e. 62 votes required.
78 owners voted in favour of retender and of those 74 granted proxy vote to the committee.

theartfullodger

Start over ...
http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/legal/courts_and_legal_action/first_tier_tribunal_housing_and_property_chamber/homeowners
&
https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/repairs_and_bad_conditions/repairs_and_maintenance_in_common_areas/property_managers_and_factors

missile

theartfullodger wrote: »

Start over ...
http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/legal/courts_and_legal_action/first_tier_tribunal_housing_and_property_chamber/homeowners
&
https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/repairs_and_bad_conditions/repairs_and_maintenance_in_common_areas/property_managers_and_factors

Thanks for your comments, but your links do not answer my question regarding GDPR. Please note >>>

Shelter to do not provide advice on this at present however more information can be obtained from the First Tier Tribunal Housing and Property Chamber website.

We were hoping for advice from someone who may have gone down the route of removing / replacing a factor see Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011

davidmcn

missile wrote: »

We are reluctant to disclose these and believe we are bound by GDPR, are we correct?

Are you registered with the ICO?

Rosemary7391

davidmcn wrote: »

Are you registered with the ICO?

They probably don't have to be... although they would be wise to check for themselves.



I'd imagine that the factor wants to see that all has been done properly, which IMO is a pretty reasonable request. The ICO have a helpline for small charities you could check with if you're unsure. I don't think you have to say who voted which way, just who was at the meeting to vote and the numbers for/against/abstaining. I'm not sure about this proxy vote thing - is that definitely allowed?

missile

davidmcn wrote: »

Are you registered with the ICO?

No. I had never heard of this thank you https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

ICO does not give much guidance on what an "organisation" is. I understand clubs, charities and similar organisations to ours are subject to GDPR. I would suggest we are in the same situation as them and there is no need for us to register?

missile

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

They probably don't have to be... although they would be wise to check for themselves.



I'd imagine that the factor wants to see that all has been done properly, which IMO is a pretty reasonable request. The ICO have a helpline for small charities you could check with if you're unsure. I don't think you have to say who voted which way, just who was at the meeting to vote and the numbers for/against/abstaining. I'm not sure about this proxy vote thing - is that definitely allowed?

Factor may have a valid reason, but that does not compel or permit the Committee to give him all of our "data".
Please note, when the committee asked factor for names so we could contact everyone, they refused quoting GDPR.
Factor has sent us a letter from his solicitor stating "individuals" are not subject to GDPR.

We have offered to facilitate an of our records by an independent third party chosen by the factor.

The factor has sent this letter to owners>

XXXXhas become aware that there is an attempt by an unelected small group of owners to seek to change the appointed Managing Agents at XXXX.
We are concerned that this is not being done in accordance with the Deed of Conditions, which could result in an invalid appointment. We are aware that one agent who was approached and asked to quote is not even a Registered Managing Agent and it would therefore be illegal for them to be appointed.
We believe that this attempt may be at the whim of a very small minority of owners and believe that the large majority of owners are currently satisfied with the current arrangements. Certainly, we have only heard from a tiny number of owners.
If Owners do have any concerns, they are free to contact the designated Property Manager, XXXXX, email on XXXX or contact myself directly.
The current process is not competent.

We believe the factor wants names of the voters so he can bully them into changing their vote.

Rosemary7391

The vote has been taken and recorded, so how could people change their vote?


The committee is not an individual. You have a constitution, keep membership records, elect chair etc. Why did you need the factor to give you details?


Something seems off here. Artful might be right that you need to start again.

missile

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

The vote has been taken and recorded, so how could people change their vote?


The committee is not an individual. You have a constitution, keep membership records, elect chair etc. Why did you need the factor to give you details?


Something seems off here. Artful might be right that you need to start again.

People frequently change their mind.

As you say, a committee is not an individual. It was hard to track owners, many properties are let and some did not wish to get involved.

It was a lot of work door knocking discussions with owners and letters to letting agents and landlords. Why do you think we need to start again? What do you suggest we did wrong?

Something seems off here.

Please advise, why do you think that?