Tribunal Cases
All 19 Housing & Property Chamber decisions involving Clydeport Properties Ltd
The homeowner complained about the property factor's poor communication and refusal to correct a flat numbering error. The tribunal found the factor had failed to communicate effectively but did not issue an enforcement order because the numbering issue was resolved.
The homeowner complained about an issue, and the tribunal found the factor had to pay £100 for the inconvenience. The factor complied with the order.
The homeowner's application was rejected because she failed to provide the required written statement of services, despite multiple requests from the tribunal.
The homeowner's application was rejected because she failed to provide the required written statement of services, despite multiple requests from the tribunal.
The homeowner's complaint about the property factor's failure to respond to correspondence and misleading information was dismissed. The tribunal found that the issues had been previously addressed or were outside the scope of the relevant code.
The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to comply with the 2021 Code of Conduct. The tribunal found that the homeowner had not properly notified the factor of the specific complaints under the correct code, and dismissed the application.
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 tribunal had requested this information but received no response.
The homeowner complained that the property factor was not providing an adapted handset for her hearing impairment. The tribunal found that the factor was not responsible for the handset inside the homeowner's flat and dismissed the complaint.
The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to carry out their duties regarding roof repairs, causing distress and inconvenience. The tribunal agreed, finding the factor delayed repairs and failed to provide the homeowner with important information. The tribunal issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's failures. The tribunal found the factor failed to comply with the Code and ordered them to pay £500, issue an apology, and provide details of future consultation procedures.
The homeowner complained the factor failed to properly manage asbestos and carry out cyclical maintenance. The tribunal found the factor had not breached their duties regarding communication, repairs, or asbestos management, and the complaints were dismissed.
The homeowner complained about the property factor's handling of a condensation issue and lack of a completion certificate. The tribunal found the factor had not breached the code of conduct and dismissed the complaint.
The homeowner complained that the property factor failed to consult them before replacing the roof. The tribunal found the factor did not have a consultation procedure, violating the Code of Conduct, and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order to amend their written statement.
The homeowner complained, and the tribunal found the factor had complied with a previous order to pay compensation. The tribunal certified the factor's compliance.
The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to respond to inquiries and provide a detailed financial breakdown. The tribunal found the factor in breach and ordered them to apologize, provide a financial breakdown, and pay the homeowner £100.
The homeowner complained about the factor's failure to provide adequate protection from vehicles and provide correct invoices. The tribunal found in favor of the homeowner and issued a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO).
The homeowner complained that the factor failed to carry out repairs and maintenance. The tribunal found that the factor had complied with its duties and the Code of Conduct, but noted the scheme of costs sent to the homeowner was inaccurate.
The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information despite multiple reminders. The tribunal dismissed the application.
The homeowner's application was rejected because they failed to provide requested information. The tribunal found the application could not proceed due to lack of information.