Tribunal Cases

The homeowner complained about a breach of the property factor's obligations under the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to apologize and pay £500 in compensation.

The homeowner sought permission to appeal the tribunal's decision, claiming the tribunal erred in law by refusing to consider additional expert evidence. The tribunal found no error and refused permission to appeal.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to arrange necessary repairs, despite knowing about defects. The tribunal found the factor did not breach their duties because the owners had not authorized or funded the repairs. The complaint was dismissed.

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 them to pay compensation and issue an apology. The factor complied with the order.

The homeowner's application was rejected because the tribunal determined she was not a homeowner as defined by the 2011 Act, and therefore the tribunal was not the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a fence repair after a storm. The tribunal found the factor followed proper procedures and the damage was not an emergency, so the homeowner's claim for reimbursement was rejected.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £200 compensation.

The homeowner complained about inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor had paid the ordered compensation and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained that the factor was slow to respond to emails and did not follow up on a water ingress claim. The tribunal found the factor failed to meet response time standards but did not issue a penalty.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the property factor to pay £300 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures and breaches of the Code, causing them trouble and distress. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £3000 in compensation.

The homeowner complained, leading to a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO). The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with their duties, but the factor then paid £600 in compensation, satisfying the order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to address issues like abandoned items and lack of repairs. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct because the owners had not provided the necessary mandates for the work to proceed.

The homeowner's application for a property factor enforcement order was rejected because they failed to provide the necessary information requested by the tribunal, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.

The homeowner's application for a property factor enforcement order was rejected because they failed to provide the necessary information requested by the tribunal, despite multiple requests and warnings.

The homeowner complained about lack of communication regarding roof repairs. The tribunal found the property factor failed to keep the homeowner informed and did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order, but noted the factor's communication had improved and the council was involved.

The homeowner complained about the quality of work and lack of communication from the property factor. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained that the factor charged a full management fee while only managing a portion of the common areas. The tribunal found that the factor was not in breach of their duties and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to notify the property factor of their concerns and did not provide requested information. The tribunal found the application was not lodged correctly.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a leak in her flat. The tribunal found the factor had acted reasonably given the circumstances and the lack of consent from other owners, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of security, invoices, and a wasp's nest. The tribunal found the factor failed to properly address the wasp's nest in a timely manner, but otherwise largely dismissed the complaints.

The homeowner complained the factor was not properly appointed and in breach of the Code. The tribunal found the factor's actions compliant with the Code and dismissed the complaint, stating any issues with the appointment process were outside their jurisdiction.

The homeowner complained that the property factor refused to share documentation about landscaping issues with the developer. The tribunal found the factor did not fail in its duties because the homeowner's request was too broad. 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 homeowner complained that the property factor failed to repair a communal roof, causing water damage. The tribunal found the factor followed proper procedures in seeking owner approval for repairs and did not uphold the complaint.

The homeowner complained about incorrect insurance premium calculations and overcharging. The tribunal found the property factor had initially made errors but had since corrected them and issued a refund, so no further order was needed.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide the tribunal with requested information, despite multiple extensions and reminders.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a new build handover and complaints process. The tribunal found the factor had followed procedures and complied with the codes of conduct, dismissing the homeowner's claims.

The homeowner requested a review of a previous decision, citing several inaccuracies. The tribunal granted the review in part, correcting some factual errors in the original decision.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to carry out their duties. The tribunal dismissed the application because the homeowner did not properly notify the factor of the issues before applying to the tribunal.

The homeowners complained about the factor's failure to provide cleaning services and timely repairs. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Property Factors Code of Conduct and ordered compensation and evidence of improved monitoring.

The homeowner's complaint about the factor's handling of repairs and refunds was dismissed. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties, despite some communication issues regarding final payments.

The homeowner sought permission to appeal a previous tribunal decision, but the tribunal refused the appeal on all grounds. The homeowner's arguments were not considered to raise points of law.

The homeowner complained about the rising cost of his building insurance and the lack of clarity around commission. The tribunal found the factor had provided the necessary information and the homeowner had not properly notified the factor of the specific complaints before lodging the application, so the application was rejected.

The homeowner complained about a data breach where their personal information was disclosed. The tribunal found the factor had failed to carry out its duties by breaching data protection regulations but that no further action was required as the ICO had already dealt with the matter.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to follow proper procedures for work and communication. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the code and its duties. No compensation was ordered.

The homeowner complained about breaches of the Code and incorrect allocation of charges. The tribunal found the property factor had complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to provide repair costs before the property purchase and about a debt notice. The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction on the first complaint and the second did not violate the code, dismissing the case.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to maintain the property and respond to communications. The tribunal found the factor had complied with its duties and the Code, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of water ingress issues, including communication, insurance, and repairs. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code of Conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained that the property factor's report to the ICO about a data breach was misleading. The tribunal found that the report was accurate and that the factor had not breached its duties.

The homeowner complained about various issues, including billing frequency and misleading information. The tribunal found the property factor had not breached its duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner was previously awarded compensation and a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) was issued. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order and paid the compensation.

The homeowner was awarded £300 compensation after the tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order. The factor then complied with the order and paid the compensation.

The homeowner complained about the factor's insurance practices and lack of garden maintenance. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties, but recommended the factor clarify its written statement of services regarding insurance. No orders were made.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of repairs, data protection, and communication. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the code of conduct and carried out their duties, dismissing the application.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to arrange insurance correctly and provide a transparent statement of services. The tribunal found the factor had breached its duties regarding insurance and communication, and ordered the factor to remedy the issues.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of water ingress issues and related repairs. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code of Conduct, but expressed concern over the factor's handling of the situation, particularly the lack of clarity in the original quote and the decision to use other contractors before allowing the original contractor to rectify any defects.

The homeowner complained about water ingress into his flat, alleging the property factor failed to properly repair the roof after storm damage. The tribunal found it could not determine the cause of the water ingress and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had not failed to comply with the code and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about water ingress and the property factor's handling of it. The tribunal found that while the factor had shortcomings, the homeowner did not follow the complaints procedure, so the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of insurance and a collection fee. The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with the Code of Conduct regarding insurance and a collection fee, but did not issue an order.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of insurance, repairs, and communication. The tribunal found the factor had not failed to comply with its duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about ongoing difficulties and misunderstandings. The tribunal found the factor had not handled the situation well and ordered compensation.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to provide sufficient information to arrange insurance. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code of Conduct and carried out its duties.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of insurance revaluations. The tribunal found the factor had initially included a pre-condition for revaluation that was in breach of the rules, but eventually complied with the order. The tribunal revoked part of the order.

The homeowner complained that the factor provided misleading information about insurance and failed to provide clear information. The tribunal found that the factor did not breach the code and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner, residing in Australia, complained about the installation of incorrect windows. The tribunal found the factor had complied with its duties and the Code of Conduct, dismissing the application.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the code of conduct. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner, initially proposing a Property Factor Enforcement Order, but ultimately declined to issue it after the factor took corrective actions.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to inform her of the progress of repair work. The tribunal found the factor did breach the code by failing to communicate adequately and ordered the factor to apologize and pay £200.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to address issues with debt recovery, inspections, and complaints handling. The tribunal found the factor had not breached its duties and dismissed the complaint.

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.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide evidence of prior written notification to the property factor, as required by law, and did not respond to tribunal requests for information.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and evidence of notifying the property factor about their concerns, as required by the rules.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a leak in her flat. The tribunal found the factor had acted reasonably given the circumstances, particularly the lack of consent from other owners, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner's application was rejected because the tribunal believed the dispute had been resolved, as the homeowner did not respond to requests for information. The tribunal did not order any action.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information despite multiple opportunities. The tribunal found the application incomplete and dismissed it.