Tribunal Record

The tribunal found the factor breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct, including failing to respond to emails and take adequate steps to address water leaks. The tribunal proposed to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal therefore proposes to make a property factor enforcement order (“PFEO”)."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order to pay compensation to the homeowner.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

The tribunal found multiple breaches of the Code of Conduct by the property factor and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, including a financial order to pay the Applicant £1300 and actions relating to providing invoices and relieving the Applicant of liability.

The tribunal found the factor breached sections 2.7 and 3.7 of the Code and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal made a Proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order, which should be read with this decision."

The Tribunal found the property factor failed to carry out its duties and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, ordering a meeting and compensation for the homeowner.

"Having determined that the Property Factor has failed to carry out their property factor duties, the Tribunal was required to decide whether to make a PFEO."

The Tribunal found that James Gibb breached several sections of the Code of Conduct, including failing to act fairly and provide clear information. The Tribunal proposed a PFEO.

"The Tribunal determined that the Respondent has failed to comply with OSP2, 3, 9 and 11, and Sections 2.7, 3.2 and 7.5 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct"

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a PFEO to pay compensation to the applicants. The proposed PFEO was not yet issued.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

The tribunal dismissed the homeowner's application because the homeowner failed to engage with the process, failing to provide requested information and not attending hearings. The tribunal noted the respondent's lack of engagement and failure to comply with directions.

"The Tribunal determined to dismiss the Applicant’s application under Paragraph 27(2)(b) of the Regulations"

The homeowner's application regarding the appointment of Property Response 24 was dismissed as the Tribunal found no evidence of impropriety or failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

"The conclusion of the Tribunal, after careful consideration of all the evidence before it, was that no evidence has been presented to suggest that the process by which PR24 were appointed was tainted."

The homeowner alleged impropriety in the appointment of Property Response 24. The Tribunal found no evidence to support this and dismissed the application, determining that the property factor properly intimated the appointment and declared any potential conflicts of interest.

"The conclusion of the Tribunal, after careful consideration of all the evidence before it, was that no evidence has been presented to suggest that the process by which PR24 were appointed was tainted."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct, particularly regarding transparency and meter reading issues, and proposed a financial order.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order"

The tribunal found the factor breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct, including failing to respond to emails and delays in handling the insurance claim. The tribunal proposed making a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal finds there has been a breach of this overarching standard. The Factor’s themselves admit that their practice could have been better."

The Tribunal dismissed the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not attend the hearing and the tribunal did not have enough information to make a decision.

"The Tribunal determined that the Application be dismissed."

The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, a PFEO was proposed, but the factor subsequently complied, so the order wasn't issued.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber determined that the property factors have complied with a proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order and that it is, therefore, unnecessary to issue the Order."

The Tribunal found James Gibb Residential Factors failed to comply with sections 2.7 and 6.6 of the Code of Conduct. The Tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for £250, which the factor complied with.

"‘The Factor must pay the homeowner £250 for the stress and inconvenience he had suffered and for their contribution to causing the IKO guarantee to be invalidated, from their own funds and at no cost to the owners. The said sums to be paid within 28 days of the communication to the Factor of the Property Factor Enforcement Order’."

The tribunal found that the factor overcharged the homeowner for gas usage and failed to be transparent in their billing. The Tribunal ordered the factor to refund the overcharged amount and pay compensation for distress.

"In respect of the amount overcharged for the supply of gas to the property the Tribunal requires the Respondents to pay the sum of £1333.43 to the Applicant"

The tribunal found James Gibb in breach of the Code of Conduct for failing to comply with sections 2.7, 6.6 and 7.2. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring the factor to pay the homeowner £500, and the factor complied.

"The Factor must pay the homeowner two times £250 (a total of £500) for the stress and inconvenience she had suffered and for their contribution to causing the IKO guarantee to be invalidated, from their own funds and at no cost to the owners."

The tribunal found breaches of the Code of Conduct. While a PFEO was proposed, the factor complied with the terms, and no formal order was made.

"The Tribunal determined not to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The tribunal found that the property factor breached the code of conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor complied with.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has failed to comply with sections 3.1 and 4.9 of the 2021 Code and parts 3 and 11 of the OSP."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, awarding the homeowner £1200 for stress related inconvenience.

"There should be a property factor enforcement order as set out in the attached PFEO."

The tribunal found James Gibb in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order. The factor was ordered to pay compensation and did so, fully complying with the order.

"The First-tier Tribunal proposes to make the following Property Factor Enforcement Order ("PFEO"):"

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code of conduct due to long delays and poor communication regarding repairs. The tribunal proposed a PFEO to refund management fees and pay compensation, which was subsequently issued and complied with.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

The tribunal found the property factor breached multiple sections of the Property Factor Code of Conduct. A Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) was made, ordering the factor to instruct works, keep the homeowner updated, and pay compensation.

"The Tribunal hereby makes the following Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”):"

The tribunal found James Gibb Residential Factors breached the Code of Conduct. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which required the factor to pay compensation and issue an apology. The factor complied with the PFEO.

"Within 28 days of the communication to the property factors of the final PFEO the property factors shall make payment to the home owner of the sum of £1000.00 ( One Thousand Pounds) and , during that same 28 day period, provide the home owner with a written apology in terms of Section 19(3) of the 2011 Act."

The Tribunal determined the factor failed to carry out their duties to a reasonable standard including significant delays in progressing repair work. The Tribunal proposed a PFEO.

"The Tribunal determined that the Respondent has failed to comply with OSP 11, and section 2.1 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct as required by Section 14(5) of the Act. The Respondent has also failed to carry out its property factor duties to a reasonable standard."

The tribunal reviewed the application and found no breaches of the Code of Conduct, dismissing the homeowner's claims.

"Having made the above findings, the Tribunal found no basis for making a Property Factor Enforcement Order in terms of Section 19 (2) of the Act."

The Tribunal found James Gibb in breach of the Property Factor Code of Practice and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring them to pay compensation. James Gibb complied with the order.

"The Tribunal determined that the property factors have complied with the terms of the Property Factor Enforcement Order made on 24 September 2024."

The Tribunal found that the factor failed to comply with Section 2.1 of the Property Factors Code of Conduct. The Tribunal proposes to make a Property Factors Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a Property Factors Enforcement Order."

The Tribunal previously issued a PFEO to the respondent. The Tribunal determined that the respondent had complied with all aspects of the order.

"The terms of the Property Factor Enforcement Order have been complied with."

The tribunal found the property factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which was later complied with.

"The Tribunal decided it was fair to refund the management fee the Homeowner had paid for 2021, 2023 and 2024. The Tribunal also decided it was fair to refund half of the fee from 2022 given a major roof repair was carried out in November of that year."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not provide the required evidence of notification to the property factor and failed to respond to requests for further information.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner failed to provide evidence of notifying the Property Factor of the issues, as required by the regulations.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal rejected the application because the homeowner did not provide the required information, including a complete application form and proof of notification to the factor, as requested. Therefore, the tribunal did not consider the merits of the application.

"The Tribunal rejects the application by the applicant sent to the Tribunal by email dated 18th March 2024, being an application under section 17(1) of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011."

The tribunal found James Gibb Residential Factors failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for £500 compensation to the homeowner for distress and inconvenience, and the factor complied with the order.

"The Property Factor is required to pay to the Homeowner within 14 days of intimation to them of the PFEO the sum of £500 from their own funds to compensate the Homeowner for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused as a result of the Property Factor’s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The Tribunal found no breach of the Property Factors Code of Conduct by the respondent and therefore did not make a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"As we have found no breach, no property factor enforcement order will be made."

The Tribunal found the factor had breached the Code of Conduct and issued a PFEO. The factor complied with the order.

"We hereby make the following Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”):"

The tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not provide evidence of notifying the factor about their concerns or provide the written statement of services requested by the Tribunal.

"the application should be rejected in terms of Rule 5 (1) and Rule 8 (1) (c) of the Rules."

The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and proposed a PFEO, including £150 compensation for the homeowner.

"the Tribunal proposes to make a PFEO."

The tribunal rejected the application because the applicant failed to provide necessary information, including proof of notification to the property factor, as required by the rules.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The tribunal initially found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a PFEO. However, after the factor took steps to remedy the breaches, the tribunal determined that a PFEO was no longer necessary.

"Because the property factor has now taken steps to remedy a failure to comply with the code of conduct as required by Section 14 of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 the tribunal unanimously decides that a Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”) is no longer necessary."

The Tribunal found that the factor breached the Code of Conduct and proposed a PFEO, ordering the factor to pay the homeowner £500.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct for failing to adhere to their own timescales for handling enquiries and complaints and for failing to keep the homeowner informed of repair progress. The tribunal did not issue a PFEO, noting the factor's remediation efforts and agreement with the homeowner on compensation.

"The Tribunal did, however, decide that the property factors had failed to comply with OSP11 and Section 2.7 of the Code of Conduct, in that they did not deal with the homeowner’s enquiries and her complaints within the timescales confirmed in their Written Statement of Services (“WSS”)"

A homeowner complained about high factoring fees. The tribunal reviewed the case and found no breaches of the Property Factors Code of Conduct by James Gibb Property Management Limited, dismissing the application.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) decided that the property factors had not failed to comply with Sections 1.C.6, 2.6, 3.1 or 5.4 of the Property Factors Code of Conduct effective from 16 August 2021."

The homeowner's representative asked the tribunal to dismiss the application after the works were completed, and the tribunal complied.

"In all of the circumstances narrated above, the Tribunal dismissed the application."

The Tribunal found that the Property Factor failed to comply with the Code of Conduct regarding communication response times, but did not issue a PFEO.

"The Tribunal declined to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The tribunal found James Gibb Residential Factors breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct, related to communication, repairs, and complaints handling. The tribunal proposed making a Property Factor Enforcement Order, but did not formally make one in this decision.

"The Factor failed to comply with (First Application )(C1) dated 29 October 2022 Sections 2.5, 6.1, 6.4, 7.1 and 7.2 of the 2012 Code of Conduct and had failed to carry out its Property Factor’s duties in terms of its written statement of services sections 1.2, 4.1, 4.8, 6.11, 7.0; and (Second Application) (C2) dated 6 November 2022 Sections 2.1, 2.7, 6.4, 6.7, 6.12, 7.1 and 7.2 of the 2021 Code of Conduct and had failed to carry out its Property Factor’s duties in terms of its written statement"

The Tribunal rejected the application because the applicant did not provide requested information and evidence.

"The Tribunal rejects the application by the Applicant dated 2nd August 2023"

The tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct and the factor's duties. The tribunal proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring the factor to pay £750 compensation.

"The Tribunal proposes, therefore, to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order in terms of the accompanying Section 19(2)(a) Notice requiring the property factors to pay the homeowner the sum of £750 as reasonable compensation for the reimbursement of factoring fees and the inconvenience and distress caused by the property factors’ failures to comply with the Code of Conduct and the property factor’s duties."

The Tribunal found the Factor in breach of the Code for failing to consult owners on security patrols and not adhering to its timescales for responding to complaints. However, the Tribunal did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order, considering the apology and compensation provided sufficient.

"Taking everything into consideration including the apology made to the Homeowner by the Factor and the charges that have been reimbursed together with the goodwill payment made the Tribunal considers that finding the Factor to be in breach of Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the 2011 code and 7.1 of the 2021 Code is sufficient sanction and that no purpose would be served by imposing a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The homeowner made two applications complaining about breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Tribunal dismissed both applications because they did not comply with the requirements of the Act.

"The Tribunal refused and dismissed the Applications FTS/HPC/PF/22/4021 and FTS/HPC/PF/23/0004 for the reason that they do not comply with Section 17 of the Act."

The Tribunal found the property factor breached Section 2.5 of the Code of Conduct and proposed to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

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

"the Legal Member considers that the application should be rejected in terms of Rule 8 (1) (c) of the Rules."

The Tribunal found James Gibb Residential Factors failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and ordered them to pay £750.00 compensation to the homeowner.

"Within 28 days of intimation of the PFEO, the Property Factor must make payment to the Homeowner of the sum of £750.00 in compensation in respect of the Property Factor’s failure to comply"

The tribunal found that the factor had breached s.2.7 of the 2021 Code, but had already remedied the breach by paying compensation to the applicant, and found no other breaches.

"The Property Factor breached s.2.7 of the 2021 Code of Conduct but has already taken sufficient steps to remedy the breach of the code of conduct."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code and issued a PFEO requiring them to obtain a report on the car park ventilation. The factor complied with the PFEO.

"The Tribunal has determined that the Factor has complied in full with the terms of the Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”) issued on 20 April 2023 therefore no further action is required."

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found in favor of the property factor, concluding that no breaches had occurred, and dismissed the homeowner's application.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) determined that the Property Factor: - (i) has not failed to comply with the Section 14 duty in terms of the Act in respect of compliance with the Property Factor Code of Conduct Section 1 Bc, Section 2.1, Section 3.4, Sections 4.3 and 4.8; Section 6.4 and Section 7.2 and (ii) has not failed to comply with the Property Factor’s Duties."

The tribunal found the factor had breached the code of conduct and proposed a PFEO that included a compensation order of £1000.

"The Tribunal proposes, therefore, to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring the property factors to pay the homeowners the sum of £1,000 as reasonable compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the property factors’ failures to comply with the Codes of Conduct."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application due to the failure to provide necessary information and documentation as required by the rules and the 2011 Act.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The tribunal found that the factor breached the code of conduct and issued a PFEO, requiring a refund of fees and compensation to the homeowner. The factor subsequently complied with the order.

"The Factor is required to do the following within 21 days of intimation to them of the PFEO: (i) Refund to the Homeowner the management fees charged from May 2020 to December 2022. (ii) Pay to the Homeowner the sum of £500 from their own funds to compensate the Homeowner for the distress, frustration and inconvenience in having to deal with the complaints procedure and the tribunal proceedings in respect of the Property Factor’s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The tribunal found the factor had breached the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for compensation. The factor subsequently complied with the order.

"The property factor will make a payment of £200 to the Applicant by way of compensation for a breach of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The tribunal found James Gibb had breached the Code of Conduct in several ways, mainly due to a 5 year delay in contacting the homeowner, and proposed that the factor pay the homeowner compensation.

"The Tribunal therefore determined to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The Tribunal refused the homeowner's application because it did not meet the requirements of Section 17 of the Act, specifically regarding the content of the initial notification and supporting evidence.

"The Tribunal refused application PF/22/2003 for the reason that it does not comply with Section 17 of the Act."

The tribunal initially found the factor did not fully comply with the PFEO, but after a review, including a change to the terms of the PFEO, determined that the factor had then complied with the order.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) ("Tribunal”) determined to review the Non-compliance Decision of the Tribunal dated 4 October 2023 and unanimously determined that the Property Factor Enforcement Order dated 21 September 2021 as revised and as remade by the Upper Tribunal by Decision dated 22 March 2023 and as varied by Decision dated 23 November 2023 (“PFEO”) has been complied with."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner failed to provide the required information and documentation, violating procedural rules and the Property Factor (Scotland) Act 2011.

"The basis of the decision is that the Applicant has failed to comply with Rule 5 and Rule 43 and Section 17 of the 2011 Act."

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and Property Factor Duties, but the tribunal found the factor had complied and dismissed the application.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) determined that the Property Factor: - (i) has not failed to comply with the Section 14 duty in terms of the Act in respect of compliance with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors 2011 (“the 2011 Code”) at Section 6 at 6.9 and Section 7 at 7.1 and (ii) has not failed to comply with the Property Factor’s Duties."

The Tribunal found no breach of the Code of Conduct by the Factor and dismissed the Homeowner's application.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) ("Tribunal") unanimously determined that the Factor has complied with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors as required by section 14 of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011."

The tribunal rejected the application because the applicant failed to provide requested information.

"The Tribunal rejects the application by the applicant dated 11th November 2021"

The tribunal found that the property factor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and ordered them to pay the homeowner £500 in compensation.

"The Property Factor is required to pay to the Homeowner within 14 days of intimation to them of the PFEO the sum of £500 from their own funds to compensate the Homeowner for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused as a result of the Property Factor’s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring the factor to pay the applicant £300.

"The Tribunal decides to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order in its originally proposed form."

The tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct, then proposed a PFEO but the factor paid the homeowner compensation and the tribunal decided a PFEO was no longer necessary.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order as set out in the accompanying Notice under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act."

The Tribunal rejected the application due to the applicant's failure to provide the requested information, deeming it inappropriate to proceed.

"Accordingly the Tribunal have good reason to believe that it would not be appropriate to accept the application and reject the application in terms of rule 8 (1)(c) of the Tribunal Rules."

The tribunal found the factor breached the code of conduct for failing to respond to complaints and not pursuing contractors. The tribunal issued a PFEO ordering the factor to pay compensation for distress.

"Within 28 days of the date of service on the property factor of this property factor enforcement order the property factor must pay the applicant £250.00 as solatium for the distress and inconvenience caused to the applicant."

The tribunal found the factor had not breached the Code of Conduct and dismissed the homeowner's application related to insurance procedures.

"The Tribunal determines that the Factor has not failed to comply with section 5.6 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct."

The Tribunal reviewed the homeowner's complaints regarding dampness and communication but determined the factor had not breached the Code of Conduct, dismissing the application.

"The Tribunal finds that the Factor has not failed to comply with this part of the Code."

The Tribunal found James Gibb in breach of the Code of Conduct for multiple failures including lack of response to inquiries, failing to provide supporting documentation and not providing information for insurance.

"The First-tier Tribunal (Housing and Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) determined that the Property Factor has failed to comply with the Section 14 duty in terms of the Act in respect of compliance with paragraphs 2.1, 2.5, 3.3, 5.7 and 6.1 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct (“the Code”) as required by section 14(5) of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 (“the Act”)."

The tribunal found that the property factor had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to provide invoices and follow its complaints procedure. The tribunal issued a PFEO requiring the factor to pay compensation, which was subsequently complied with.

"The Factor is required to pay to the Homeowner within 14 days of intimation to them of the PFEO the sum of £300 from their own funds to compensate the Homeowner for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused as a result of the Factor’s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The Tribunal found James Gibb Residential Property Factors breached the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring them to apologize and pay compensation. The factor complied with the order.

"Within 14 days of the date of service of this PFEO the respondent must issue an apology to the applicant and pay her the sum of £450 for breaching the Code”"

The tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not provide the required information.

"The Tribunal rejects the application by the applicant dated 25th June 2021"

The tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct by failing to follow the complaints resolution procedure. A PFEO was issued, ordering the factor to pay the homeowner £250, which the factor then complied with.

"The Factor will pay to the Homeowner within 21 days of the date of service of this order the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Pounds (£250) from their own funds in order to compensate the Homeowner for the inconvenience caused as a result of the Factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors Code of Conduct."

The Tribunal rejected the application because the applicant did not provide the requested information.

"Accordingly the Tribunal have good reason to believe that it would not be appropriate to accept the application and reject the application in terms of rule 8 (1)(c) of the Tribunal Rules."

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

"The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal found the Factor failed to carry out its duties and breached the Code of Conduct. A Property Factor Enforcement Order was issued, including a requirement for the Factor to pay the Homeowners £1200.

"The Tribunal has decided that it should make a PFEO in the terms originally proposed by it."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not provide the required information and documentation as per the rules and the 2011 Act.

"The basis of the decision is that the Applicant has failed to comply with Rule 5 and Rule 43 and Section 17 of the 2011 Act."

The Tribunal found that the property factor failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, awarding the homeowner £100 in compensation.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order as detailed in the accompanying Notice made under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act."

The Tribunal found the property factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order to address the breaches.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a PFEO given the Tribunal’s findings and that the respondent has breached sections 2.5, 6.1 and 6.4 of the Code."