Tribunal Cases

The homeowner complained about delayed roof repairs and communication issues. The tribunal found the property factor had not failed to comply with the code of conduct and dismissed the application.

The homeowner alleged the factor's communication about a stonework repair project was misleading, causing him to miss out on grant funding. The tribunal found the factor's communication clear and the homeowner's failure to apply for the grant was his own fault, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner filed a complaint against the factor, but failed to attend two scheduled case management discussions. The tribunal dismissed the case because the homeowner did not cooperate.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's breaches of the Code, resulting in a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had complied with the PFEO and ordered them to pay the homeowner £250.

The homeowner complained that the factor gave incorrect advice about a neighbor's video doorbell installation and made an error in a letter. The tribunal found the factor breached the code of conduct by including an inaccurate reference from the title deeds but did not issue an enforcement order.

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 £100 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the complaint was valid and initially proposed a compensation order, but the factor paid the compensation before the order was issued.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to properly seek consent for additional planting, violating the Code of Conduct. The tribunal agreed, finding the factor's approach to homeowner responses inconsistent and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's communication, financial transparency, and failure to provide requested information. The tribunal found the factor had failed to meet its obligations regarding communication and providing information, but declined to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order due to the homeowner's non-payment of fees.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures to meet their duties. The tribunal found the homeowner failed to attend hearings and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's management of common areas and alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code and its duties, dismissing the homeowner's application.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide the necessary information and documentation, as required by the rules and the 2011 Act, despite being asked to do so by the tribunal.

The homeowner's application was rejected because the tribunal determined the homeowner was not a homeowner as defined by the Act, as the land in question was not available for their use. No orders were made.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to provide a clear statement about service delivery and charges. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order and issued a Certificate of Compliance.

The homeowner was initially granted a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) for £300. However, the homeowner declined the payment, and the tribunal revoked the PFEO.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal found the property factor had initially failed to comply with a previous order. The tribunal determined the factor had since complied and the homeowner received compensation.

The homeowner complained that the property factor had not fully complied with a previous Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found that the factor had provided all available documentation and therefore had complied with the order.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to call an owners meeting, procurement of a survey, intimidation, and failure to respond to communications. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of insurance, electricity charges, and key fobs. The tribunal found the factor acted reasonably in all instances and dismissed the homeowner's application, but ordered the factor to pay expenses for failing to attend a hearing.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of insurance, electricity charges, and key fobs. The tribunal found the factor acted reasonably in all instances and dismissed the homeowner's application.

The property factor's application was dismissed because they failed to respond to the tribunal's communications and did not provide any information to support their case. The tribunal decided not to review its original decision.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £150 compensation for distress. The factor complied with the order.

The homeowner's complaint that the property factor mismanaged roof repairs and the complaints process was dismissed. The tribunal found the factor acted reasonably and followed proper procedures.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to call meetings, used confusing correspondence, and pursued a debt improperly. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct or failed in their duties, dismissing the homeowner's application.

The homeowner's application was dismissed because they failed to properly notify the property factor of their complaint, as required by law.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal found the property factor had not initially complied with the order to pay compensation. The tribunal determined the factor had since complied and the order was fulfilled.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor had failed in their duties and ordered them to issue an apology, pay compensation, and prepare a works program.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to meet their duties. The tribunal found the factor had breached their duties and initially ordered compensation. After review, a new order for £350 compensation was issued, which the factor then paid.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide evidence of notifying the property factor of their complaints, as requested by the tribunal.

The homeowner's application was dismissed because she had not notified the factor in writing about her complaint before applying to the tribunal, as required by law. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider the case.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had breached the code and issued a direction.

The homeowner complained about the lift in their building. The tribunal found the property factor had not failed in their duties, despite delays in repairs, and the homeowner was responsible for the costs.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £200 compensation.

The homeowners' application was rejected because they did not respond to requests for information, leading the tribunal to conclude the dispute was resolved.

The homeowner complained about misleading information, delays, and inadequate service. The tribunal found the factor had not failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of an insurance valuation. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct, despite some delays, and the homeowner's premium increase was due to a valuation increase. The tribunal dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor charging for balcony repairs that were not common property. The tribunal found the factor had exceeded its authority and failed to clarify the charges, and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to follow procedures when revaluing the property and increasing insurance premiums. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in its duties, as the homeowner's complaints were not upheld.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal found the factor had already credited the homeowner's account with the compensation. The tribunal decided not to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the property factors' handling of insurance revaluations and the failure to inform homeowners of the frequency of revaluations. The tribunal found the factors had breached the code by not informing homeowners of revaluation frequency, but the factors had since changed their practice. No order was made.

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

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to disclose potential roof repairs during a property sale. The tribunal found the factor was not obligated to disclose the information as the works were only in contemplation, not instructed, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor had not complied and ordered them to pay £200 compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to maintain the landscape. 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 maintain the landscape. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in their duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner had a charge of £68 removed from their account after a Property Factor Enforcement Order was issued. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order and granted a Certificate of Compliance.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide sufficient information about the alleged breaches of the property factor's duties and the Code of Conduct, despite multiple requests from the tribunal.