Tribunal Record

The tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner did not provide necessary information as requested, including evidence of prior notification to the property factor and a copy of the written statement of services.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application after the parties indicated the matter had been settled and neither party attended the case management discussion.

"the Tribunal dismissed the Application."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered them to pay the homeowner £1220. The factor subsequently complied with the order.

"The Tribunal makes a property factor enforcement order in the terms originally proposed."

The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with Section 5.3 of the Code of Conduct by not informing the homeowner of the change of insurer but decided not to issue a PFEO.

"The Tribunal does not propose to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order."

The Tribunal found that the factor breached the Code of Conduct by taking too long to issue a refund. No further action was taken because the factor had already waived management fees.

"Having made the above findings, and notwithstanding that there had been a minor breach of paragraph 2.7, the Tribunal found no basis for making a Property Factor Enforcement Order in terms of Section 19 (2) of the Act."

The Tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring compensation and a refund of erroneous charges. The factor complied with the order.

"The Tribunal hereby makes the following Property Factor Enforcement Order(“PFEO”): The Property Factor must (i) make reasonable payment to the Homeowner to compensate them for inconvenience, frustration and time spent. There being no direct evidence of financial loss, the Tribunal considers that a sum of £250.00 is reasonable in all the circumstances; (ii) refund all erroneous charges issued to the Homeowner, and to all other homeowners in Waterfront Avenue, insofar as they relate to roof repai"

The tribunal found the property factor had not breached the Code of Conduct and dismissed the homeowner's application.

"Having made a decision in terms of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act that the Property Factor has not failed to comply with the Code, the Tribunal makes no orders and the application is dismissed."

The Tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because the homeowner failed to provide necessary information, including proof of notification to the property factor and a copy of the written statement of services.

"The application is rejected on that basis."

The tribunal found the factor breached the code of conduct regarding communication and transparency about insurance costs. The tribunal proposed a Property Factor Enforcement Order for £200, which the factor then paid, so the order was not made.

"The Tribunal upheld the homeowner’s complaint under OSP2. There was no question of dishonesty, but their communication in relation to the insurance arrangements was confusing and far from transparent."

The homeowner alleged the factor breached the Code of Conduct by charging for handling complaints. The tribunal found that the charges were not for complaint handling and refused the application.

"The Application is refused on the basis that the charges applied that the Applicant alleges constitute a breach of Section 7.3 of the Code are not relevant as they are not claim handling charges."

The homeowner alleged the factor breached the code. The tribunal found no breaches, dismissing the application.

"The tribunal does not find there to be any breach of the code in relation to the Homeowner’s application."

The tribunal rejected the homeowner's application because it did not uphold the claims made by the homeowner.

"The Tribunal rejects the application by the Applicant dated 13th April 2023, being an application under section 17(1) of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011."

The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and proposed a PFEO. However, it decided not to make the order after considering the representations from the parties and finding the factor had taken action to comply.

"Therefore, the Tribunal proposes to make a PFEO."

The Tribunal found the property factor breached the Code of Conduct regarding the direct debit failures but did not issue a PFEO at this stage; instead, it proposed to issue one.

"The Tribunal therefore gives notification to parties of its intention to make a property factor enforcement order."

The tribunal found a breach of the code of conduct and initially proposed a PFEO. However, after the factor complied with the terms of the proposed order, the tribunal decided that a formal PFEO was not needed.

"At today’s date the respondent complies with the code of conduct & the Property Factors Duties. A Property Factor Enforcement Order is not necessary."

The homeowner alleged the property factor breached the Code of Conduct in relation to the termination of their role by residents. The tribunal did not uphold any of the homeowner's complaints.

"The Tribunal decided that the property factors have not failed to comply with their duties under the Code of Conduct for Property Factors"

The tribunal found breaches of the code of conduct. The factor then took steps to rectify the issues, leading the tribunal to determine that a PFEO was no longer required, and ordered a refund to the homeowner's account.

"The tribunal determined that the property factor has acted on notice of a proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order so that a Property Factor Enforcement Order is no longer necessary."

The tribunal rejected the application because the applicant did not provide the required information.

"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 the factor breached Section 2.5 of the Code of Conduct regarding complaint timescales, but determined no further action was needed.

"the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order in this case."

The tribunal rejected the application because the applicant failed to provide necessary information after being requested to do so.

"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 Property Factor breached the Code of Conduct in several areas, but the breaches were not considered to be false and misleading. No financial orders or enforcement orders were made.

"The tribunal determined that the failures of the Property Factor fell short of being false and misleading."