Tribunal Cases

Homeowners complained about backdated electricity charges and the factor's handling of the issue. The tribunal found the factor's response to a complaint was late, but the breach was minor, and no enforcement order was issued.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a billing error and deficiencies in the Written Statement of Services. The tribunal found the factor failed to adequately address the billing issue and that the WSS lacked clarity on underwriting fees and termination procedures, and issued a PFEO.

The homeowner claimed the property factor intimidated him during a debt recovery meeting. The tribunal found the factor's statements were a factual explanation of debt recovery, not intimidation, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained that the factor took legal action without proper notice. The tribunal found the homeowner did not follow the correct procedure for making a complaint and dismissed the case.

The homeowner complained about overcharging for electricity due to a broker issue. The tribunal found the property factor's communication was poor but they acted to refund the overcharge, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the factor had failed in their duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which was later complied with.

The homeowner complained about invoicing errors. The tribunal found the property factor's procedures inadequate and ordered them to create a written process for identifying and managing these errors.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to respond to a complaint within the required timeframe. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with its own complaints procedure but did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to follow their complaints procedure. The tribunal found the factor had failed in this duty but declined to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order, as the issue was due to a former employee and procedures had been updated.

The homeowner's complaint resulted in a Property Factor Enforcement Order. The tribunal determined the factor complied with the order and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's poor communication and handling of a lock replacement charge. The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with its duties regarding the written statement of services and ordered a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, including issues with a Trustpilot review and staff training. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to correct the review, provide staff training, and pay the homeowner compensation.

The homeowner complained about a lack of information regarding car park lights and ground maintenance dates. The tribunal found that the issues had been previously addressed and that providing specific dates for ground maintenance was not possible due to weather dependency, dismissing the complaint.

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

The homeowner complained about the property factor's alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct regarding repairs and contractor selection. The tribunal found the factor had acted in accordance with the owners' instructions and the title deeds, and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to provide financial details, address complaints, and other issues. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to provide information about the cost of odourless cleaning products and consult with other homeowners. The tribunal found that while the factor should have done these things, it did not breach the code of conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the condition of the bin store and the property factor's failure to respond. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct, but should have acknowledged the complaint. No order was made.

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 found the application could not be accepted due to the homeowner's non-compliance.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, including proof of notifying the property factor of the complaint, as required by the rules.

The homeowner complained about Newton Property Management. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the property factor to pay £750.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of bulk uplifts, common lighting charges, paintwork quality, and litter. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties and dismissed the complaints.

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 compensation, which the factor then paid.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply and ordered compensation, which the factor then paid.

The homeowner complained about Newton Property Management Ltd's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had failed in its duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor has now complied with.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information, including proof of notifying the factor and exhausting the complaints process. The tribunal found the application incomplete and dismissed it.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation as required by the Tribunal, despite being asked to do so.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had failed in its duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor later complied with.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had breached its duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor subsequently complied with, including paying £500 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of the contingency fund, Sky Q box repairs, and fire alarm inspections. The tribunal found the factor was not in breach of most complaints, but did fail to respond to a complaint email. No financial award or enforcement order was issued.

The homeowner's complaint led to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) in 2020. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order and issued a Certificate of Completion.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to refund a float and keep them advised of debts. The tribunal dismissed the case because the factor had refunded the float and the homeowner did not attend the hearing.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered a payment of £100, which was subsequently made.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's unclear written statement, lack of communication, and failure to provide services. The tribunal found the factor had not failed to comply with their duties and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of repairs, tree maintenance, and billing practices. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in its duties and dismissed the homeowner's 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 the homeowner £376.66 in compensation and confirm no further debt recovery action.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with the Act and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor subsequently complied with.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to resolve damage to his driveway caused by a contractor. The tribunal found the factor had done all that was required and the homeowner's complaint was premature, so the case was dismissed.

The homeowner complained about charges. The tribunal found the factor had not provided a full explanation of the charges and ordered the factor to provide a full explanation within 28 days.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a leak and insurance claim. The tribunal found that the factor did not breach the Code of Conduct and did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowners complained about the property factor's handling of a water leak and subsequent flood, including poor communication and delays in reporting the claim. The tribunal found the factor failed to respond to complaints in a timely manner and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner disputed the factor's classification of repair work as communal, arguing it was individual responsibility. The tribunal found the works were indeed communal, upholding the factor's actions.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, specifically regarding the written statement of services. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order and no further action was required.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's poor communication and handling of a lock replacement charge. The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with its duties regarding the written statement of services and the handling of complaints, and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of sewage pump failures, gate maintenance, and groundskeeping. The tribunal found the factor had complied with its duties and the Code of Conduct, dismissing the complaints.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to reimburse them for repair costs. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct and no compensation was awarded.

The homeowner complained that the factor improperly reallocated charges. The tribunal found the factor did not breach the Deed of Conditions or the Code of Conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about several issues, including the factor's handling of repairs and the electric gates. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in their duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to provide information about the tender process for maintenance work and to deal with complaints properly. The tribunal found the factor failed to consult with owners and to provide full information, and ordered the factor to apologize, create a consultation procedure, and provide inspection reports.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information to the tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the case due to lack of response.

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

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had failed in their duties and ordered £500 compensation. The factor subsequently complied with the order.