Tribunal Cases

The homeowner's complaint against Hacking and Paterson settled before a decision was made. The tribunal dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor increasing the float without proper notice. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code of conduct for poor communication regarding the float increase, but otherwise dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's poor communication and delays in arranging roof repairs. The tribunal found that while there were communication failings, the factor had apologized and provided compensation, so the complaint was not upheld.

The homeowner's complaint resulted in a Property Factor Enforcement Order. The tribunal determined the factor had complied with the order and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about water ingress and related issues. The tribunal found the property factor in breach of their duties and ordered them to carry out repairs, provide updates, and pay compensation.

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 order and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's incorrect reference to custom and practice in their Written Statement. The tribunal found the factor in breach of their duties and ordered them to issue a corrected statement and pay £200 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had initially failed to comply but later complied with the enforcement order.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to maintain a strip of land and trees. The tribunal found the factor acted reasonably by consulting homeowners and not proceeding with work due to lack of consensus, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's poor communication regarding a float increase and lack of transparency in accounting. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code of conduct for inadequate communication and lack of clarity in financial reporting, and ordered the factor to provide reconciliation statements for the float.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to arrange repairs and provide adequate information. The tribunal found the factor in breach of several sections of the code of conduct, including communication and insurance information, but did not issue an enforcement order.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the factor had complied with a previous order and paid the homeowner £250 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about a fee charged by the property factor for handling the sale of their property. The tribunal found the fee was in line with the factor's written statement of services and the homeowner's solicitor did not dispute it, so the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a proposed cleaning contract and complaint handling. The tribunal found the homeowner's complaints were baseless and the factor acted appropriately, dismissing the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal dismissed the application because the homeowner did not provide the required information and failed to attend the second case management discussion.

The homeowner complained that the factor mishandled the decision on repairing a fence, and the tribunal found the factor's communication was initially misleading but ultimately corrected. No enforcement order was issued.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of water ingress repairs and cost apportionment. The tribunal found the property factor had not breached the Code of Conduct and dismissed the complaints.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties. The tribunal found the factor had not complied and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor later complied with.

The homeowner complained about late payment fees added to their invoices. The tribunal found the initial fee was a breach of the code but the homeowner's subsequent failure to pay invoices meant the factor's offer of £200 compensation was reasonable. A Property Factor Enforcement Order was issued.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £300 for inconvenience and provide a transparent account of funds.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of CCTV upgrades, communal lighting, and gritting services. The tribunal found the factor had not properly sought approval for gritting costs, breaching the code, and ordered the factor to reimburse the homeowner for gritting costs.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply and ordered the removal of late payment charges and a notice of potential liability. The factor complied with the order.

The homeowner complained the factor was in breach of the code of conduct, including issues with late payment fees, lack of agreement to appoint the factor, and poor communication. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowners' applications were rejected because they failed to provide required information and documentation, despite multiple requests from the tribunal.

The homeowner complained, and the tribunal previously issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) requiring the factor to pay compensation and clarify liability shares. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the order.

The homeowner complained about a £100 apportionment fee charged by the factor after the sale of the property. The tribunal found the fee was in line with the factor's written statement of services and schedule of fees, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's conduct, including sending legal notices to the wrong address and demanding payment for sums not owed. The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with several sections of the Code of Conduct and ordered them to pay £2,500 in compensation.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to ensure a contractor had public liability insurance. The tribunal found the factor did not appoint the contractor and therefore had no obligation, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's communication and debt recovery practices. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Code of Conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about being charged for community hub costs without explanation. The tribunal found the factor failed to properly explain the charges and respond to the homeowner's inquiries, but the developer's explanation resolved the issue.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of warden and alarm services. The tribunal found the factor had complied with a previous order to consult homeowners, and the services were not reinstated due to homeowner votes. The tribunal issued a Certificate of Compliance.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failings. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £250 for their time and inconvenience.

The homeowner complained the factor overcharged for services. The tribunal found the factor was not in breach of its duties, as the fee was clearly stated and homeowners could seek alternative factors if they disagreed.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failings. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £500 in compensation for inconvenience and distress.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information and documentation to the tribunal, including proof of notifying the property factor of the complaint. The tribunal found the application could not be accepted.

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

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, as requested by the tribunal, regarding their complaint against the property factor.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, including proof of notifying the property factor of the complaint, as required by the rules.

The homeowner complained about incorrect charges on invoices. The tribunal found the factor had made errors but had re-credited the account and offered compensation, so the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowners complained about the property factor's handling of a water ingress issue, including communication, insurance, and repairs. The tribunal found the factor had complied with their duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's alleged breaches of the code of conduct, particularly regarding communication and maintenance. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code or failed in their duties, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to maintain a sinking fund and did not communicate changes to ground maintenance. The tribunal found the factor failed to meet its duties regarding the sinking fund and communication, and ordered the factor to issue a satisfaction survey and pay the homeowner £250.

The homeowner argued the property factor wrongly charged for garden maintenance on his property, which wasn't a garden. The tribunal found the homeowner was still liable for common area maintenance costs, even if his specific area wasn't maintained. No order was made.

The homeowner argued he should only pay a £1 annual management fee, as stated in the title deeds. The tribunal found the homeowner knew the fee before buying the property and was bound by the existing agreement, dismissing the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £500 compensation.

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's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information despite multiple reminders. The tribunal dismissed the case.

The homeowner complained about a breach of the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the factors in breach and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring them to pay the homeowner £500.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of common charges, communication, and contractor selection. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a common repair, specifically the replacement of a lintel. The tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint because the alleged failures occurred before the relevant dates and that the factor did not breach the code.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a common repair, specifically the replacement of a lintel. The tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the complaint because the alleged failures occurred before the relevant dates, and also found no breach of the code.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a common repair, specifically the replacement of a lintel. The tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint because the alleged failures occurred before the relevant dates, and also found no breach of the code.

The homeowner complained about breaches of the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the homeowner had not followed the formal complaints process and failed to attend the hearing, so the application was dismissed.

The homeowner complained that the factor instructed roofing work without approval. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the code, despite poor communication, and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to carry out their duties regarding repairs to a stairwell. The tribunal found that the factor had not unreasonably delayed in attempting to resolve the homeowner's concerns and dismissed the case.

The homeowner complained that the factor provided misleading information to the court and took legal action without proper notice. The tribunal found that the factor did not violate the code of conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of lift maintenance and a disconnected emergency phone. The tribunal found the factor had acknowledged failings and made amends, so the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner was awarded compensation after a Property Factor Enforcement Order was issued. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with the order, but later complied by paying the compensation.

The homeowner complained about overcharging for insurance. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct and that the homeowner was responsible for the insurance. No orders were made.

The homeowner complained about the factor providing misleading information and failing to provide details about insurance. The tribunal found the factor had breached the code of conduct but had already paid compensation, so no further action was ordered.

The homeowner complained about an Apportionment Charge that was imposed without prior notice. The tribunal found the factor had not failed in their duties, as the homeowner's solicitors had agreed to the charge on their behalf.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to provide supporting invoices. The tribunal found the factor had complied with the Property Factor Enforcement Order and no further action was required.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's lack of transparency regarding insurance arrangements. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the factor had breached their duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

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 (PFEO) with compensation. The factor later complied with the order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to communicate about repairs to a water leak. The tribunal found the factor failed to provide estimated timescales for completion of the work and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found that the factor had not failed in their duty and dismissed the case.

The homeowner complained about the factor providing misleading information and having a poor complaints process. The tribunal found the factor breached the code by providing false information and having an inadequate complaints procedure, but did not issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to properly disclose insurance commissions. The tribunal found the factor had not been transparent about commissions and ordered them to amend their terms of service and reissue them to homeowners.

The homeowner complained about the factor increasing the float for their property. The tribunal found the factor had the power to do so and that the increase was for the purposes stated in the deed, and rejected the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor increasing the float for flats. The tribunal found the factor had the power to do so, and the homeowner must pay the disputed amount when selling the property.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's insurance practices. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct and dismissed the complaint.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to repair water ingress and keep them informed. The tribunal found the factor breached the code of conduct but had since fixed the issues and issued compensation. No further action was ordered.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of render cleaning. The tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct by failing to advise the homeowner of their right to appeal, but no further action was ordered.

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's case was sent back for reconsideration by a different committee. The tribunal quashed the previous decision and ordered the decision to be published on the website.

The homeowner complained about drainage issues and other problems. The tribunal found the property factor had not failed in its duties and dismissed the application because the homeowner had not exhausted the internal complaints process.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to provide accurate information and complaints handling. The tribunal found the factor had provided misleading information and failed in its complaints handling duties, ordering compensation and an apology.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with their duties, including issues with repairs and electricity charges. The tribunal found the factor had failed in their duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

The homeowner complained about the factor's handling of the float and termination terms. The tribunal found the factor breached the Code by providing misleading information and failing to follow proper procedures, ordering the factor to apologize, pay compensation, and amend their terms.

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 also failed to respond to the tribunal's requests for information.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide the tribunal with the necessary information, including clarifying the connection between the applicant and the property, and proper notification to the property factor. The tribunal dismissed the application.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information, including proof of notifying the property factor of their concerns, as requested by the tribunal.

The homeowner complained about fire safety compliance. The tribunal found the application was not relevant and did not fall within its jurisdiction, and therefore rejected the application.

The homeowner requested a review of the tribunal's decision, citing several issues with the property factor's performance. The tribunal reviewed the request and found it to be without merit, upholding the original decision.

The applicant, Shawlands Dental Care, failed to provide requested information to the tribunal. The tribunal rejected the application due to the lack of required information.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation as required by the Tribunal, despite multiple requests.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, as requested by the tribunal, regarding their complaint against the property factor.