Tribunal Cases

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, resulting in distress and inconvenience. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £250 in compensation.

The homeowner complained about issues with a drying green. The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction because the issue wasn't related to common property maintained by the factor and dismissed the case.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct, particularly regarding fire safety and communication. The tribunal found the factor had complied with its duties and dismissed the application.

The homeowner reported water damage in October 2022, but the factor took over four months to address it, failing to communicate or arrange repairs promptly. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code but did not issue a PFEO because the factor refunded costs, management fees, and improved staffing.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, including proof of notifying the property factor of their concerns and a copy of the written statement of services.

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.

The homeowners complained that the factor failed to carry out its duties. The tribunal found the factor had failed to comply with its duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor later complied with.

The homeowners complained about the property factor's failure to provide information about repairs and adhere to maintenance schedules. The tribunal found the factor had failed in its duties and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, requiring them to repair the roof, improve maintenance, and pay additional compensation.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's insurance information. The tribunal found the factor had provided all required information and the homeowner's claims were baseless, so the application was refused.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide evidence that the property factor was notified of the issues, as required by the rules.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with the Property Factors Code of Practice. The tribunal found the factor had failed to meet their obligations and ordered compensation, which was subsequently paid.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with a previous order to refund fees and assign a property manager. The tribunal found the factor had eventually complied and recalled the failure to comply decision.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to comply with a previous order. The tribunal found the factor had paid the required compensation and issued a certificate of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the factor's actions. The tribunal found the factor had not fully complied with the proposed PFEO and ordered the factor to refund management and concierge fees and provide evidence of compliance.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to communicate properly. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and ordered the factor to pay £300 and to use the homeowner's preferred email address for all communications.

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 issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, which the factor subsequently complied with.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide the necessary information and documentation as required by the Tribunal, including details of their complaints and the property factor's responses.

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 reported storm damage, but the property factor failed to act promptly, leading to further damage and poor communication. The tribunal found the factor in breach of their duties and the Code of Conduct.

The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to comply with the Property Factor Code of Conduct. The tribunal dismissed the application and made no orders.

The homeowner complained that the landlord failed to respond to her communications about damage to her property. The tribunal found that the landlord was not acting as a letting agent in this case, so the code of practice did not apply and the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner complained about being billed for services not carried out and lack of communication. The tribunal found the property factor failed to respond to the complaint and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order, cancelling the final invoice.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's poor communication and failure to address a dry rot issue. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the code of conduct and ordered them to pay £500 compensation and provide a specialist report.

The homeowner complained that the factor failed to comply with its duties under the Property Factors Act. The tribunal found the factor had initially failed to comply with the code, but later complied with the terms of the proposed Property Factor Enforcement Order, so no further action was required.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to comply with their duties, specifically regarding roof damage and water ingress. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to pay £3,500 in compensation, which they subsequently did.

The homeowner complained about contradictory information regarding costs and liability for a leak. The tribunal found the property factor had miscommunicated but did not provide misleading or false information, and the complaint was dismissed.

The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to address a fence repair, provide cost breakdowns, and respond to complaints. The tribunal found the factor in breach of the Code of Conduct and ordered them to repair the fence, refund management fees, and pay the homeowner £500 compensation.

The homeowner, Miss Passmore, filed a complaint against Lowther Homes. The tribunal rejected the application because the homeowner was unable to provide requested information and sought to resolve the matter directly with the property factor.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation as required by the Tribunal rules and the 2011 Act. The Tribunal found the homeowner did not comply with the requirements for lodging the application.

The homeowners' application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and evidence, including proof of notifying the property factor and a copy of the written statement of services.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and evidence, including proof of notifying the property factor of their concerns. The tribunal found the application incomplete and not lodged correctly.

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 failure to comply with the code of conduct. The tribunal found the homeowner did not provide sufficient notification to the factor and dismissed the application.

The homeowner complained about the property factor's failure to carry out their duties. The tribunal found the homeowner did not provide necessary documentation and information, and the application was rejected.

The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide necessary information and documentation, as required by the Tribunal's rules and the 2011 Act. The homeowner did not respond to requests for further information.