Tribunal Cases

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to carry out promised garage repairs and lack of communication. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to complete the works, provide updates, and pay £1,000 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to maintain the property and respond to communications. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code of conduct for failing to respond to emails and address maintenance issues, and ordered the factor to pay £750 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's breaches of the 2021 Code. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £1000 for the homeowner's distress.

The homeowner complained about the factor's breaches of the 2021 Code, causing inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £300 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's actions. The tribunal found the factor had failed in their duties and ordered them to pay £1250 for the homeowner's time and effort, and to correct invoice errors.

The homeowners complained about the property factor's failures of their duties, causing trouble and inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor in breach and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring them to pay each homeowner £300.

The homeowner's complaint was dismissed because they failed to engage with the tribunal process, including not responding to requests for information or attending hearings. The tribunal also noted the property factor's lack of cooperation and disregard for the tribunal's directions.

The homeowner alleged the property factor improperly appointed an out-of-hours service, Property Response 24 (PR24), without homeowner consent. The tribunal found the appointment was properly communicated and the familial connection disclosed, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner alleged the property factor improperly appointed an out-of-hours service, Property Response 24 (PR24), without homeowner consent. The tribunal found the appointment was properly communicated and the familial connection disclosed, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal found the factor had failed in their duties. The tribunal ordered the factor to pay the homeowner £1250 in compensation.

The homeowner's application was dismissed because they were not present at the hearing and the tribunal lacked sufficient information to make a decision.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's inclusion of legal advice costs in invoices. The tribunal found the factor had improperly charged for legal advice and ordered the factor to credit the homeowners' accounts.

The homeowner complained about the factor's actions, leading to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about being overcharged for gas and the distress caused by the factor's breaches. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £2333.43 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's actions, leading to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had complied with the PFEO and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures to comply with their duties. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the property factor to pay compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of utility charges and related issues. The tribunal found the factor had not properly managed these and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor later complied with.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the building and poor communication. The tribunal found multiple breaches of the code of conduct, including delays in repairs and inadequate responses to complaints, and ordered compensation.

The homeowners complained about the factor's failures in their duties, causing them trouble and inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £500 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor had not met their obligations and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor subsequently complied with.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to carry out promised garage repairs and lack of communication. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to complete the works, provide updates, and pay £1,000 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's actions, leading to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order, which included compensation and an apology, and issued a certificate of completion.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to repay management fees and pay compensation for the homeowner's time and effort.

The homeowner complained about several issues, including delayed return of a float and failure to provide insurance information. The tribunal found the factor did not breach the code of conduct and dismissed the case.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the property, communicate effectively, and provide necessary information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor's Duties. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply and ordered compensation. The factor then complied with the order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's actions, and the tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The factor complied with the order, crediting homeowner accounts and paying the applicant.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal previously issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) requiring the factor to pay £1000. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £500 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a lift repair, specifically the speed of response and communication. The tribunal found the factor did not breach the code of conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about disputed charges. The tribunal found the factor had to credit the homeowner's account and pay compensation, and the factor complied with the order.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information, including proof of notifying the property factor of their concerns, as required by the tribunal.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay the homeowner £150 for the inconvenience.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and evidence of notifying the property factor about their concerns, as required by the rules.

The homeowner complained that the property factor breached the code of conduct. The tribunal found the factor had breached the code but, because the factor took steps to remedy the issue, decided a Property Factor Enforcement Order was not necessary.

The homeowner complained about the inconvenience caused by the factor. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £500 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's lack of communication and delays in addressing a damp issue. The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with their code of conduct regarding communication and repairs, but no enforcement order was issued because the factor offered compensation and improved their processes.

The homeowner complained about unexpectedly high factoring fees, particularly insurance costs, compared to initial estimates. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the Code of Conduct, as the initial estimates were indicative and the homeowner was advised to seek legal advice on the title deeds. No compensation was awarded.

The homeowner complained about delays in having rot works carried out, which impacted her ability to have a wet room installed. The tribunal found the works were completed and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to respond to communications in a timely manner and the handling of a broken window system. The tribunal found the factor failed to meet communication standards but did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order, as compensation was offered. The tribunal found the window system issue was not a core service.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to maintain the property and communicate with owners. The tribunal found the factor had failed in its duties and ordered the factor to hold meetings, agree on maintenance, and pay the homeowner compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures. The tribunal initially ordered compensation and a PFEO, but later withdrew the order after learning the factor had already paid the compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to consult owners before hiring security patrols and delays in responding to complaints. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code of conduct but did not issue further orders, as the factor had already refunded costs and paid compensation.

The homeowner complained about excessive insurance costs and a lack of transparency from the property factor. The tribunal found the homeowner's initial complaint did not follow the correct procedure and the second complaint lacked proper prior notification, so both were dismissed.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to respond to an email. The tribunal found the factor had not responded and ordered them to issue an apology and provide a response. The factor complied with the order.

The homeowner complained about poor communication and failure to follow complaints procedures regarding roof repairs. The tribunal found the property factor in breach of the code of conduct and ordered them to pay £750 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to maintain common areas and respond to communications. The tribunal found no breaches of the code of conduct, as the homeowner had already accepted compensation for a communication issue, and dismissed the case.

The homeowners complained about the factor's handling of car park ventilation, masonry repairs, and window work. The tribunal found the factor failed to obtain independent advice on ventilation and failed to communicate effectively. The tribunal ordered the factor to obtain an independent report on the ventilation system.

The homeowners complained about the factor's handling of car park ventilation, masonry repairs, and window work. The tribunal found the factor failed to obtain independent advice on the ventilation system and failed to communicate effectively about masonry issues, but dismissed other complaints. The tribunal ordered the factor to obtain an independent report on the ventilation system.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to comply with the code of conduct and their duties. The tribunal found that the factor had not breached the code or their duties, and dismissed the application.

The homeowners complained about the property factor's failings. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowners and ordered the factor to pay £1,000 in compensation for inconvenience and distress.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, as required by the rules and the 2011 Act. The tribunal determined the application could not be accepted due to the homeowner's non-compliance.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the property, communicate effectively, and provide necessary information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained about a breach of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had paid the required compensation and issued a Certificate of Compliance.

The homeowner complained about an issue that led to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order, which involved a payment to the homeowner, and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, specifically regarding debt recovery and communication. The tribunal found the homeowner's application did not comply with the Act and refused it.

The homeowner complained about insurance statements and costs. The tribunal found the factor had not provided the correct information and ordered them to provide an insurance statement and recalculate insurance costs.

The homeowner complained about the property factor. The tribunal found the factor had complied with a previous Property Factor Enforcement Order and closed the case.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, as required by the rules and the 2011 Act. The tribunal had requested this information, but the homeowner did not respond.

The homeowners complained that the factor failed to carry out its duties. The tribunal found the factor had not complied with the code and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor later complied with.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of window repairs, garden maintenance, and debt recovery. The tribunal found the factor had followed procedures and did not breach its duties. No orders were made.

The homeowner complained about the factor's communication, consultation, and complaints handling. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code of Conduct and dismissed the homeowner's application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach of several sections of the code and ordered them to pay £500 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and initially proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order for £250, but the factor paid the compensation, so the order was deemed unnecessary.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures to adhere to the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had breached multiple sections of the code and awarded compensation.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide the tribunal with the necessary information, including proper notification to the factor about the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor has now complied with.

The homeowner complained that the factor did not explain why they chose the insurance provider, despite cheaper options being available. The tribunal found the factor had provided sufficient explanation and had not breached the code of conduct.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of a dampness issue and communication failures. The tribunal found the factor did not fail to comply with its duties, though it could have communicated better.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct and their duties. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £1000, provide documentation, and rectify damage.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £300 to the homeowner.

The homeowner complained about a breach of the Code. The tribunal found the factor had breached the code and ordered an apology and compensation. The factor complied with the order.

The homeowner filed a complaint, but failed to provide requested information. The tribunal rejected the application due to the lack of response.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors Code of Conduct. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £250 in compensation.

The homeowner, Mr. Black, filed a complaint. The tribunal found the application incomplete due to lack of response and information. The tribunal rejected the application.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation as required by the Tribunal rules and the 2011 Act.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, as required by the Tribunal rules and the 2011 Act.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of repairs and maintenance, alleging delays and inadequate work. The tribunal found the factor had complied with their duties and the Code of Conduct, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained about multiple breaches of the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had breached the code and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor subsequently complied with.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to follow their complaints procedure by not acknowledging his complaint within 5 working days. The tribunal agreed, finding the factor caused the homeowner inconvenience and ordered £100 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of water damage and related issues. The tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct regarding communication, inspections, and work programs, but the breaches did not cause the damage. The tribunal ordered the factor to pay £1,000 compensation.

The homeowner had previously won a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) against the factor. The tribunal reviewed whether the factor had complied with the PFEO, and found that they had, including paying compensation and pursuing insurance claims.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of repairs, debt recovery, and communication. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code of Conduct and their duties, and no orders were issued.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the property, communicate effectively, and provide necessary information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct and their duties. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £750 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of a dampness issue, specifically the failure to act on a specialist report and manage repairs. The tribunal found the factor did not breach their duties, as they relied on the advice of a plumber and the insurance company's decisions.

The homeowner complained about the quality of painting and subsequent remedial work. The tribunal found the factor had taken reasonable steps to address the issues and did not breach the code, but also determined it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the factor's duties. No orders were made.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to carry out their duties, specifically regarding repairs. The tribunal found the factor had breached the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order. The factor subsequently complied with the order.

The homeowner complained that the property factor made changes to the written statement of services without proper consultation. The tribunal found that the factor did not breach the code of conduct or fail to carry out its duties, as there was no requirement to consult before changes.

The homeowner's previous Property Factor Enforcement Order was varied. The tribunal removed a specific order from the original PFEO.

The homeowner argued the factor improperly increased the float and failed to recover unpaid charges before redistributing debt. The tribunal found the factor followed proper procedures and did not uphold the complaint.

The homeowner complained about an error in a funding request for roofing works. The tribunal found the issue had been resolved in a previous agreement and rejected the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £800 compensation, which they subsequently did.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the property, communicate effectively, and provide necessary information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered compensation.

The homeowner submitted an unsigned application. The tribunal rejected the application because the homeowner failed to comply with the request to sign and date it.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they did not provide the required information despite multiple reminders from the tribunal. The tribunal found the application could not proceed due to the lack of information.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failures of duty and breaches of the Code, causing trouble and inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £750 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of repairs and water ingress. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in its duties, but acknowledged the homeowner's ongoing concerns. No orders were made.

The homeowner complained about an administrative fee for selling their property, and the factor failed to follow the complaints procedure. The tribunal found the factor breached the code of conduct but did not issue an order, as the issue was minor.

The homeowner had a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) issued against the factor. The tribunal reviewed the factor's compliance with the PFEO and determined that the factor had complied with all requirements.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the property, communicate effectively, and provide necessary information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained about debt recovery procedures. The tribunal found the property factor had not followed proper procedures and ordered them to pay compensation.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to address subsidence issues with the garage. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner initially complained about the factor's failure to carry out their duties, leading to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order and closed the case.

The homeowner complained about persistent water ingress. The tribunal found the factor failed in their general duties by not appreciating the seriousness of the problem and failing to take appropriate action. The tribunal proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code. The tribunal found the factor had breached sections of the code and issued a PFEO, which the factor later complied with.

The homeowner complained about various issues, including communal electricity bills and emergency lighting. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the factor had failed to meet their obligations and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring the factor to take specific actions regarding communication, roof surveys, and maintenance planning.

The homeowner complained about an increase in her insurance premium and the property factor's lack of transparency. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the code of conduct and no breaches of duty, so the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to respond to requests for further information, indicating the dispute was resolved or inappropriate for the tribunal.

The homeowner was charged late payment fees. The tribunal found the fees were improper and ordered the factor to reimburse the homeowner.

The homeowner complained that the property factor terminated their block insurance early. The tribunal found the factor acted in the homeowner's best interests by avoiding cancellation fees and that there was no break in cover, so the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner had previously been awarded compensation and the property factor was ordered to pay it. The tribunal reviewed the evidence and found the factor had complied with the order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors Code of Conduct. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £1000 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duty. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained that the property factor had not complied with the terms of the Code and had not carried out the Property Factor's duties. The tribunal decided to postpone the hearing to allow the parties more time to make written representations.

The homeowner complained about the property factor pursuing a debt that had been previously disputed. The tribunal found the factor had not properly considered the complaint and the factor agreed to cancel the debt. No compensation was awarded.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures. The tribunal found the factor had breached its duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO), which the factor subsequently complied with.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to provide information about insurance. The tribunal found the factor breached its duty to provide information and ordered the factor to pay £500 compensation and provide the requested information.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's incorrect handling of sinking fund allocations. The tribunal found the factor's averaging method was incorrect, leading to a shortfall for the homeowner, but the factor corrected the error. The tribunal found no further action was required.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £750 compensation, provide an independent audit of the sinking fund, and provide documentation related to repairs and funding.

The homeowner complained about incorrect insurance premiums and inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor had overcharged and caused inconvenience, ordering them to refund the premium and pay compensation.

The homeowner was awarded compensation for inconvenience and stress, and a refund of insurance excess. The tribunal found the factor had initially failed to comply with the PFEO but later complied, issuing a Certificate of Compliance.

The homeowner complained about damage to her flat's ceiling after structural works. The tribunal found the property factor had not failed to comply with its duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) requiring the factor to pay compensation. The factor complied with the order and paid the homeowner £550.

The homeowner complained about the accuracy of a property survey and the associated insurance costs. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties, as the factor relied on professional expertise and the homeowner was obligated to pay for the survey and insurance.

The homeowner's complaint led to the tribunal finding the factor failed to comply with its duties. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring the factor to send letters to owners and provide evidence of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to maintain the property, communicate effectively, and provide necessary information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of balcony cleaning and planting works, alleging a failure to consult and obtain value for money. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in its duties, but recommended improvements to communication and processes.

The homeowner complained about a leak and the factor's handling of it. The tribunal found that the current factor, James Gibb Property Management Ltd, was not responsible for the failings of the previous factor, Bruce & Partners, and the application was withdrawn.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay the homeowner £75 for inconvenience.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay compensation.

The homeowner complained that the property factor had not complied with a previous Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found that the factor had complied with the PFEO, but noted the homeowner's concerns about the policy's clarity.

The homeowner had a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) issued against the factor. The tribunal determined the factor had complied with the order. No further action was required.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found that the factor had eventually complied with the PFEO and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide evidence that they had notified the property factor of their concerns, as required by the Property Factor (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Tribunal's rules.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide the tribunal with the necessary information, including a completed application form and evidence of prior notification to the property factor. The tribunal found the application incomplete and dismissed it.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide evidence that they had notified the property factor of their concerns, as required by the rules. The tribunal found the application could not be accepted.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information to the tribunal. The tribunal found the dispute resolved and dismissed the case.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information and evidence of notifying the property factor of the alleged breaches, as required by the Property Factor (Scotland) Act 2011.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they did not provide the requested information to the tribunal. The tribunal found that the homeowner had not fully answered the tribunal's questions.

The property factor's application was rejected because they failed to provide the tribunal with requested information, despite reminders. No further action was taken.