Hacking & Paterson Management Services Limited tribunal record

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."

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."

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."

A homeowner applied to the Tribunal alleging that the property factor had failed to comply with numerous Code paragraphs and WSS duties relating to communication, financial transparency, debt recovery, contractor management, and the use of an online portal at a 73-property development. After a two-day hearing, the Tribunal found no breach on any of the grounds alleged, concluding that identified shortcomings — including two erroneous debt notices and a letter sent in error in 2022 — amounted to isolated human error rather than systemic Code failures. The Tribunal observed that communication could be improved and encouraged the factor to issue a specification of works to homeowners.

"The Tribunal determined that the Factor has not failed to comply with the Section 14 duty in terms of the Act or failed to carry out their property factor duties."

Two linked applications alleged failures by the property factor under the 2012 and 2021 Codes of Conduct, covering lawn maintenance standards, debt recovery conduct, communications, invoicing clarity, and the approach to the homeowner's mortgage lender. Following two case management discussions and two hearings, the Tribunal found all complaints unsubstantiated, noting that the homeowner had not communicated dissatisfaction to the property factor prior to legal enforcement and that the mortgage-lender contact incident arose from circumstances outside the factor's immediate control. The Tribunal determined no failure to comply with any Code provision or Property Factor Duty.

"For these reasons, the Tribunal determined that there had been no failure to comply with the Property Factor Duties."

The tribunal found Hacking and Paterson in breach of the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring them to pay £250 to each of the nine applicants.

"The Factor must pay each applicant £250 from their own funds and at no cost to the owners. The said sums to be paid within 28 days of the communication to the Factor of the Property Factor Enforcement Order’"

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Property Factors Code of Conduct. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and decided that the property factors had not breached the Code and dismissed the application.

"the property factors have not failed to comply with Sections 2.1, 2.3, 6.6, 6.9, 6.10 or 6.11 of the Property Factors Code of Conduct effective from 16 August 2021 and have not failed to carry out the property factor’s duties."

The application was dismissed because the parties reached a settlement.

"The tribunal, therefore, dismisses the Application"

The tribunal found a breach of the Code of Conduct (2.1) because the factor did not consult the homeowner about the increase in the float adequately. No further action was taken.

"We consider that there has been a breach under this section of the code as far as the Property Factor did not ensure that the Homeowner was consulted appropriately in decision-making and had access to the information, she needed to understand the operation of the Property Factor."

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found no breaches and dismissed the application, noting that the factor had already offered compensation in the form of a refund of management fees.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber determined that the property factors have not failed to comply with OSP2, OSP3, OSP4, OSP6, OSP11 or Sections 1.5, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.12 or 7.1 of the Property Factors Code of Conduct effective from 16 August 2021 and have not failed to comply with the property factor’s duties."

The Tribunal determined that Hacking and Paterson failed to comply with a previous PFEO requiring a clear and transparent account and reconciliation of funds.

"The Tribunal determine that the Factor has failed to comply with Clause Two of the PFEO."

The Tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct by improperly requesting payment for a survey charge and failing to provide complete insurance documents when requested. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for compensation and a refund, which the factor subsequently complied with.

"The Tribunal makes the following PFEO:"

The tribunal found the property factor had breached multiple sections of the Property Factor Code of Conduct regarding the handling of homeowner complaints about water ingress issues and made a Proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has failed to comply with the Section 14 duty in terms of the Act in respect of compliance with Overarching Standards of Practice 1, 2 and 6 and Sections 2.4,2.7,6.1 and 6.4 of the Property Factor Code of Conduct 2021 (“the 2021 Code”)."

The Tribunal found breaches of the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order. The factor was ordered to pay the applicant £750.

"The First-tier Tribunal proposes to make the following Property Factor Enforcement Order ("PFEO"):"

The Tribunal rejected the application because the applicant failed to provide necessary information and evidence, including proof of notifying the property factor.

"The application is rejected on that basis."

The tribunal rejected the application because the applicant did not provide requested information, as required by the rules.

"The basis of the decision is that the Applicant has failed to provide the information requested by the Tribunal under Rule 5(3) of the Rules which is necessary to meet the required manner for lodgement."

The Tribunal rejected the application because the applicant did not provide the required information, as per the rules.

"The basis of the decision is that the Applicant has failed to provide the information requested by the Tribunal under Rule 5(3) of the Rules which is necessary to meet the required manner for lodgement."

The Tribunal determined the Property Factor had failed to comply with the Section 14 duty and proposes to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order to address the issue. The homeowner's application was dismissed.

"The First-tier Tribunal proposes to make the following Property Factor Enforcement Order ("PFEO"):"

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code. A PFEO was issued, which the factor failed to comply with.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor: Has failed to comply with the Property Factor Enforcement Order which was issued on 24th June 2024."

The tribunal found the factor breached the code by instructing a repair on land not factored by them and then failing to inform residents. A PFEO was issued, which the factor complied with by communicating with residents about the error.

"The Respondent is ordered to issue a communication to all residents of the development explaining what happened with the mistaken repair and setting out what steps they have taken to avoid any repetition."

The tribunal refused the applications by the homeowner, finding the property factor had acted with reasonable skill and care and had not breached their duties.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) determined that the Property Factor has not failed to carry out their duties in terms of section 17 of Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011."

Rejected on 13 August 2024: the applicant did not evidence that the complaints had been notified to the factor under section 17(3). No merits were decided.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal found the Factor in breach of sections 2.1, 5.3 and 6.1 of the 2021 Code of Conduct and its written statement of services, but did not issue a PFEO. The Homeowner withdrew the application C1.

"We consider that there has been a breach under this section."

The tribunal found that the factor failed to carry out their duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order for £250 in compensation. The factor complied with the order.

"Within one month of the communication to the property factors of the PFEO, the property factors shall pay to the homeowner the sum of £250 by way of compensation for the property factors’ failure to comply with the Property Factor’s Duties."

The homeowner alleged the factor was unreasonably charging for services related to the sale of their property. The Tribunal found the factor had acted in line with its written statement of services and dismissed the application.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has not failed to carry out its property factor duties in terms of section 17(1) of the 2011 Act, and has not failed to comply with the Code."

The Tribunal rejected the application because the applicant did not provide the required information, including clarifying the connection between the applicant and a third party, and providing required notifications to the factor.

"Accordingly the Tribunal have good reason to believe that it would not be appropriate to accept the application and reject the application in terms of rule 8 (1)(c) of the Tribunal Rules."

The Tribunal found that the Respondent (Hacking and Paterson) did not breach the Code of Conduct and dismissed the Applicant's claims.

"The Respondent did not breach the Code."

The homeowner's application was dismissed due to non-compliance with the tribunal's directions and non-attendance at a case management discussion.

"Consequently, the Tribunal dismiss the application."

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The Tribunal found no breaches of the Code and dismissed the application.

"Overall, the Tribunal therefore does not consider the Respondent to have been in breach of para.2.1 of the Code."

The homeowner alleged breaches of the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal found that the property factor had not breached the code and dismissed the applications.

"The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) determined that the Property Factor has not failed to comply with the Section 14 duty in terms of the Act in respect of compliance with the Property Factor Code of Conduct 2012 and has not failed to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct 2021."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed an order requiring them to credit the applicant's account and make a further payment to him.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

The tribunal initially proposed a PFEO but then decided not to issue it after the factor credited the homeowner's account with £200, which was the same amount as a goodwill offer made earlier.

"The tribunal decides not to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The homeowner alleged the factor breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct, but the Tribunal determined no breaches occurred and dismissed the application.

"The Property Factor has not failed to comply with its duties under section 14(5) of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 Act in that it did not fail to comply with Sections 1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 5.3 of the Code of Conduct for Property Factors."

The Tribunal found a breach of the Code. A PFEO was proposed, requiring the factor to reimburse the homeowner for gritting costs since 2018.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("PFEO")."

The tribunal found that the factor breached the Code of Conduct. A PFEO was issued, ordering the factor to remove £600 from the homeowner's account, which the factor complied with.

"The Property Factor is required to remove the sum of £600, which is comprised of late payment charges and the registering of a Notice of Potential Liability, from the Homeowner’s account."

The tribunal found that the factor did not breach the Code of Conduct in relation to the homeowner's complaints, and dismissed the application.

"The Factor has not failed to comply with its duties under section 14(5) of the 2011 Act."

The tribunal rejected the homeowners' application because they failed to provide the required information and documentation as per the rules and the 2011 Act.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The tribunal found the property factor breached its duties in relation to the cleaning contractors and apportionment of charges and issued a PFEO requiring payment of compensation.

"The Tribunal proposes to make a property factor enforcement order ("Property Factors EO")."

The homeowner alleged the factor breached duties by charging a £100 apportionment fee. The tribunal found the fee was in line with the factor's written statement and dismissed the application.

"The Tribunal determine that the Property Factor charged the apportionment fee in line with their written statement of services and schedule of fees and the Property Factor has not failed to comply with the property factor’s duties."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because they failed to provide required information, including evidence of notifying the Property Factor of their concerns.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The tribunal found the factor breached the Code of Conduct. The tribunal proposed to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order for compensation of £2,500.

"The Tribunal proposes, therefore, to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order requiring the property factors to pay the homeowner the sum of £2,500 as reasonable compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the property factors’ failures to comply with the Code of Conduct."

The homeowner alleged a breach of the Code. The tribunal found the property factor did not appoint the contractor and thus had no obligation under the Code, dismissing the homeowner's application.

"The Tribunal, having found that the Property Factor did not appoint Ritchie Property Services Limited the contractor, determined that the Property Factor was not under an obligation to take reasonable steps with regard to that contractor having public liability insurance, and so did not breach Section 6.8 of the Code."

The homeowner alleged several breaches of the Code, but the tribunal found the property factor had complied with the Code and dismissed the application.

"The Tribunal unanimously determined that the respondent has complied with the Code of Conduct for Property Factors (“the Code”)."

The tribunal found the factor breached its duties by failing to properly consider the homeowner's complaint and to provide a satisfactory explanation for the charges. However, the tribunal determined that the developer's explanation resolved the issue, and no further action was needed.

"We do not consider therefore that there would be any requirement for a property factor enforcement order to be made in this case."

The Tribunal found that the Property Factor failed to respond to the homeowner's request for a common repair. However, the Tribunal decided not to issue a Property Factor Enforcement Order.

"The Tribunal has determined that it should not make a Property Factor Enforcement Order (“PFEO”)."

The homeowner alleged the factor overcharged for services. The tribunal found no breach of the Code of Conduct and dismissed the homeowner's application.

"The Tribunal determined that the Property Factor has not failed to carry out its property factor duties in terms of section 17(1) of the 2011 Act, and has not failed to comply with the Code."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct for not dealing with the homeowner's complaint quickly and fully. The Tribunal initially proposed a PFEO, but the factor paid the homeowner £500 compensation before the PFEO was made so the Tribunal determined that a PFEO was not necessary.

"The Tribunal’s view was that the property factors should recalculate the apportionment of hot water charges included in bills covering the period from 30 May 2020 to date and should refund to the homeowner any sums by which he has been overcharged."

The Tribunal determined Hacking & Paterson had complied with a previously issued PFEO related to consultation regarding services.

"The Tribunal unanimously determined that the respondent has complied with the PFEO issued on 25 February 2022, and accordingly the Tribunal determined to issue a Certificate of Completion in confirmation that compliance had been achieved."

A homeowner applied under Section 17 of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 against the property factor in respect of 103 Broomhill Drive, Glasgow. The Tribunal requested evidence that the homeowner had notified the factor in writing and a copy of any response, but received no reply to either of two requests. The Legal Member rejected the application under Rule 8(1)(c) on the basis that mandatory lodgment requirements had not been met.

"the application should be rejected in terms of Rule 8(1)(c) which states that an application must be rejected if the Tribunal has "good reason to believe that it would not be appropriate to accept the application.""

The tribunal rejected the application because the applicant failed to provide the requested information.

"The Tribunal rejects the application by the applicant dated 27th June 2021, being an application under section 17(1) of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not comply with requests for further information and documentation.

"The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because she failed to provide the necessary information and documents.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner failed to provide requested information and documentation, violating procedural rules.

"The Legal Member therefore determines that the application cannot be accepted. The application is rejected on that basis."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner failed to provide the necessary information as required by the rules and the 2011 Act.

"The application is rejected on that basis."

The homeowner claimed the factor failed to apply the deed of condition regarding garden maintenance. The tribunal found no breach of duty, as the homeowner still benefits from maintenance of common areas within the development, and dismissed the application.

"The Tribunal unanimously determined that there has been no failure by the property factor to carry out the Property Factors’ duties in terms of section 17 of the Act."

The Tribunal found the Property Factor breached the Code of Conduct and proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order, although no order was made at this stage.

"The Tribunal proposed to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order."