Tribunal Record

The tribunal found that Charles White Ltd failed to carry out their duties to a reasonable standard and issued a PFEO requiring them to issue an apology and pay the applicant £150.

"The Tribunal order the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of £150 for his time, effort, and inconvenience,"

The tribunal determined the property factor failed to comply with Section 5.4 of the Code of Conduct, but declined to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (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 Section 5.4 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct 2021 (“the Code”) but decided not to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The tribunal found that Charles White Ltd breached the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order for inappropriate charges.

"We propose to make a property factor enforcement order (“PFEO”). The terms of the proposed PFEO are set out in the attached document."

The Tribunal determined the factor breached the Code of Conduct. A PFEO was made requiring the factor to submit documentation regarding CRM training.

"The Respondent is to submit to the Tribunal satisfactory documentation confirming a regular and appropriate training schedule for their customer relations managers (CRMs”"

The tribunal found Charles White LTD in breach of the Code of Conduct in a minor way, but did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

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

The tribunal found in favor of the property factor, determining they hadn't failed to comply with their duties or the code of conduct, therefore, the application was dismissed.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) determined that the Property Factor has not failed to comply with the Property Factor’s Duties and has not failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The Tribunal found that the property factor had failed to comply with certain sections of the Code of Conduct and proposes to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

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

The Tribunal found that Charles White Limited had fully complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order that was previously made.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order in full."

The tribunal found that Charles White Limited had fully complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order, which had been issued earlier.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order in full."

The Tribunal had previously issued a PFEO and, after a hearing, determined the factor had complied fully.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order in full."

The tribunal found the property factor breached the Code of Conduct at multiple points, particularly related to calling an AGM without proper authority and misrepresenting information. The tribunal proposed making a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The First-tier Tribunal proposed to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The tribunal dismissed the application because the homeowner's application did not satisfy the requirements of Section 17 of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011, specifically regarding the notice provided to the factor and the reasons for the alleged breaches.

"As the Application does not comply with the Act, the Tribunal dismisses it without Order."

The Tribunal found the factor had breached the code and proposed a PFEO. The PFEO was made and the factor complied with the order.

"The Tribunal having determined that the proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order dated 4 June 2024 (‘PFEO’) relating to the Property has been complied with, decided that a PFEO is not required."

The tribunal found the factor breached the code and issued a PFEO that required the factor to remove late payment charges and pay the homeowner £200. The factor complied with the PFEO.

"The Property Factor is required to (i) Remove all late payment charges occurring from 18th February 2021 to date from the Homeowner’s account. (ii) Pay to the Homeowner within 14 days of intimation to them of the PFEO the sum of £200 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 homeowner alleged the property factor breached the Code of Conduct. The Tribunal found the factor had not breached any standards, and dismissed the application.

"the Tribunal finds that the Respondent has not breached any of the standards of the Code."

The Tribunal found that the Property Factor had failed to comply with the Property Factor Duties because they did not have authority to instruct the lift repair. The Tribunal declined to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

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

The tribunal found the property factor failed to investigate complaints about the quality of work and compliance with the contract, constituting a breach of duty.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has failed to comply with OSP 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct as required by Section 14(5) of the Act. The Property Factor has also failed to carry out its property factor duties to a reasonable standard."

The homeowner alleged the factor failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found no breach of the Code.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) decided that the property factors had not failed to comply with OSPs 4, 6 and 11 and Sections 1, 2.1, 6.1, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.12 of the Property Factors Code of Conduct effective from 1 October 2012 and had not failed to carry out the property factor’s duties."

The tribunal found the factor breached its duties, specifically by exceeding its delegated authority for repairs and not identifying the invoice errors. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for a refund of £75.

"Within 35 days of the date of the communication to the Respondent of this property factor enforcement order, the Respondent must: Pay to the Applicant the sum of £75..."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct for failing to respond promptly to a homeowner's report of a leak. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for £500.

"The tribunal is therefore driven to the conclusion that the property factor has failed in the duties under the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with its duties and issued a PFEO. The tribunal later determined the factor had complied with the order and no further action was required.

"The Tribunal has determined that the Factor has complied in full with the terms of the proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”) issued on 14 November 2018 therefore no further action is required."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and issued a PFEO. The Tribunal subsequently determined the factor fully complied with the PFEO.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO"). The terms of the proposed PFEO are set out in the attached Section 19(2) (a) Notice."

The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with their duties, issued a PFEO for compensation, and the factor then complied with the order.

"The Tribunal determined that the property factors have complied with the terms of the Property Factor Enforcement Order made on 8 September 2022."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct for providing incorrect information leading to overpayment of insurance premiums. A Property Factor Enforcement Order was proposed and issued, requiring the factor to pay the homeowner £500, which they complied with.

"The Tribunal proposes to make the following Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”): “Within one month of the communication to the property factors of the PFEO, the property factors shall pay to the homeowner the sum of £500 by way of compensation for inconvenience and distress.”"

The Tribunal found the factor had breached the code. The tribunal proposed a PFEO. The factor complied with the proposed PFEO, so a formal order was not needed.

"The Tribunal determines that, the Property Factor having carried out the actions required by its proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”), there is no need to make the PFEO."

The tribunal found a breach of OSP 11 (failure to respond in a timely manner) and issued a PFEO requiring the factor to respond to an enquiry regarding drainage work. The factor subsequently provided a response to the homeowner.

"The Tribunal order the Property Factor to provide the Homeowner with a response to his enquiry dated 3 January 2022 regarding the invoice issued in relation to the drainage work, within 28 days of intimation of the PFEO."

The tribunal found the factor failed to respond to complaints within prompt timescales (breach of section 2.5 of the Code) and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, awarding the homeowner £300 compensation.

"The Tribunal considered that the sum of £300.00 was appropriate compensation having regard to both the anxiety and distress caused to the Homeowner by the Property Factor’s failure in respect of the Code and in respect of the Homeowner’s time and inconvenience in dealing with the complaints process and Tribunal proceedings."

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

"the application should be rejected in terms of Rule 8(1) (c) which states that an application must be rejected if the Tribunal has “good reason to believe that it would not be appropriate to accept the application.”"

The tribunal found no breach of the code of conduct by the property factor and dismissed the homeowner's application regarding debt recovery procedures.

"The Tribunal, having made such enquiries as it saw fit for the purposes of determining whether the property factor has complied with the code of conduct as required by Section 14 of the 2011 Act, determined that the property factor has not breached the code of conduct for property factors and has not failed to carry out its duties in terms of s.17 of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011."

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and failure to comply with duties, but the Tribunal found no evidence to support these claims and dismissed the application.

"the Tribunal finds no evidence that the property factor has failed to comply with the introduction to section 1, with sections 2.1 or 7.1 of the Code and no evidence that the property factor has failed to comply with the Property Factor’s duties as required by section 17 (1) (a) of the Act."