Ratings & Reviews
Written Statement of Services
How Hacking & Paterson's statement compares: notice period 90 days vs median 90; insurance commission: takes commission. See how all 80 statements compare →
- Routine Response
- 2 working days
- Enquiry Response
- 7 working days
- Billing Frequency
- Quarterly
- Notice Period
- 3 months
- Insurance Commission
- Takes 26% commission
Online Portal
Mobile App: My H&P
TPI Member
Areas Covered
Hacking & Paterson's coverage spans 14 areas of Scotland (from our coverage mapping).
Area
Mapped properties
Market share
Portfolio Profile
3,737
Buildings managed
21.0
Avg units / building
14
Median units / building
Building Size Distribution
Distribution of managed buildings by unit count. Average building size: 21.0 units.
Tribunal Record
Since 2021
56
Cases
39%
Upheld
(median: 50%)
4.2
Adjusted rate/10k
(median: 6.6)
13
PFEOs
Enforcement
£11,315
Paid
Compensation
Communication
Top Issue
26 cases
Rating basis: PFEO-weighted rate 4.2 per 10,000 (at or below 10). Unweighted adverse rate: 2.8 per 10,000 properties. How we calculate this →
All Complaint Types
Communication (26)
Financial (17)
Maintenance (14)
Other (14)
Consultation (7)
Complaints Handling (7)
Insurance (5)
Debt Recovery (4)
Disclosure (2)
Recent Decisions
FTS/HPC/PF/25/1669
2026-09-14
PFEO Proposed
A homeowner complained that the property factor failed to explain why its insurance broker stopped obtaining multiple quotes for the block buildings policy, while the factor or its parent company received 26% commission on the premium. The Tribunal found a breach of Code Section 5.8 only — the factor could not demonstrate why multiple quotes were not obtained — but found no breach of OSP2, OSP3, Section 5.9, or property factor duties. The Tribunal proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring the factor to pursue the broker for a written explanation, provide it to the homeowner, explain its contractual position, and pay £250 compensation.
"the Property Factor, as the principal who instructs the broker as agent, is bound to comply with the Code regardless of this arrangement and is bound to ensure that the broker as agent is both aware of the terms of the Code and the requirement to comply with it."
Insurance
View on HPC →
FTS/HPC/PF/25/4386 | FTS/HPC/PF/25/4385
2026-08-26
Dismissed
Two homeowners applied for a Property Factor Enforcement Order alleging failures relating to the transparency of reserve/sinking fund accounting and the absence of a development-specific bank account. The Tribunal found that homeowners' funds were adequately ring-fenced in a nominee Bank of Scotland account separate from the factor's own fee income, and that the practical impossibility of opening an account in the names of 321 individual owners justified the pooled-account arrangement. All complaints under Code Sections 3.2 and 3.12 and WSS Clause 4.7 were dismissed.
"The Tribunal did not uphold the complaint under Section 3.12 of the Code. In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal considered the purpose of the Section, which is to ensure that homeowners' contributions to a reserve or sinking fund are ring-fenced."
View on HPC →
FTS/HPC/PF/25/4720
2026-08-14
Dismissed
A property company complained that the Factor breached the Code of Conduct by withholding circa £786 in float, retention and advance insurance funds after the sale of a property, and by delays in providing the complaints form. The Tribunal determined the application on the written record without an oral hearing. It found that the Factor had complied with sections 3.7, 3.8 and 7.1 of the 2021 Code of Conduct: the alleged inflexibility in the post-sale accounting process was not a breach, the Factor held adequate procedures for advance payments, and a written complaints handling procedure was in place.
"the Tribunal finds that the Factor has not failed in its duty under section 17(1)(b) of the 2011 Act to comply sections 3.7, 3.8 and 7.1 of the 2021 Code of Conduct."
View on HPC →
Hacking & Paterson rates 2.4★ — below the Glasgow average of 3.5★. See better-rated factors covering your building →
Thinking of switching from Hacking & Paterson Management Services Limited? Read our step-by-step guide to changing property factors in Scotland.
Had problems with Hacking & Paterson Management Services Limited? Read our step-by-step guide to making a formal complaint about your property factor.
Company Info
Companies House →
Status
Active
Incorporated
1980-12-31
Company No.
SC073599
Accounts
Up to date
Directors
5
Avg. Tenure
7.1 yrs
FAQ
Has Hacking & Paterson had any tribunal cases?
Yes, Hacking & Paterson has had 56 tribunal cases since 2021, with 39% of complaints upheld.
How do I make a complaint about Hacking & Paterson?
First, raise your complaint directly with Hacking & Paterson using their formal complaints procedure (required by law to be in their Written Statement of Services). If the factor refuses or unreasonably delays after you notify them in writing (section 17 of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011), you can apply to the Housing & Property Chamber. Visit housingandpropertychamber.scot to start an application. Our complaints guide explains the full process including template letters.
How do I switch away from Hacking & Paterson?
To change property factors, you'll need a majority vote from property owners in your development (typically at an AGM or EGM). The new factor must be registered with the Scottish Property Factor Register. Our switching guide explains the full process step-by-step.