Tribunal Cases
All 19 Housing & Property Chamber decisions involving Trinity Factoring Services Ltd
The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to plant trees and maintain a fence. The tribunal found the factor had acted reasonably regarding the trees, but breached complaint handling timescales. The tribunal dismissed the application regarding the fence, as it was not the factor's responsibility.
The homeowner complained about plumbing and window repairs, and disputed fees. The tribunal found the factor had followed the correct complaints procedure and made no order.
The homeowners complained about the property factor's failure to comply with a previous order. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order.
The homeowner complained about the apportionment of common charges. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the PFEO by issuing accounts and providing the decision link, and that the apportionment method was correct. The tribunal dismissed the complaint.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of garage levy fees. The tribunal determined the factor was not responsible for the garage property and the homeowner accepted the offer to waive the levy charge.
The homeowner's application against the property factor was rejected because the homeowner failed to provide sufficient evidence of notifying the factor about the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and property factor duties.
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 £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of refunds and lack of documentation. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct regarding the provision of a written statement of services, communications, and financial obligations. No orders were made.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's method of allocating common repair costs. The tribunal found the factor had correctly interpreted the deed of conditions and had not breached its duties, dismissing the complaint.
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 homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to respond to communications and follow its complaints procedure. The tribunal found that the factor had complied with a previous enforcement order requiring them to improve these processes.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of complaints, fire safety, and other issues. The tribunal found the factor had generally followed procedures and acted within its authority, dismissing the homeowner's claims.
The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information about their complaint. The tribunal dismissed the application.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures regarding pigeon damage repairs, damage caused by BT, and fire safety concerns. The tribunal found the factor failed to adequately pursue BT for damages and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to consult on paying the house manager's salary during furlough. The tribunal found the factor breached their duties by not consulting and ordered them to comply with the deed of conditions regarding independent audits.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's breaches of duty. The tribunal found the factor had breached its duties and ordered the factor to pay £600 compensation, but did not issue a PFEO because the payment was made.
The homeowner complained that the factor had not fully complied with a previous Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found that the factor had complied with the PFEO and the case was closed.
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 commission the factor received from the insurance provider. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code and that the commission was not excessive. No order was made.