How to Complain About a Property Factor in Scotland

Your factor ignores emails, bills don't add up, repairs stay broken for months—and you're wondering if there's anything you can actually do about it. You're not alone. Citizens Advice Scotland reported a 19% rise in factoring complaints in July–September 2025, and Housing and Property Chamber applications have surged — the Chamber received 421 property-factor applications in 2024-25. The good news: Scottish law gives homeowners powerful tools to hold factors accountable—including a free tribunal where, in our dataset, homeowners succeed in 74% of substantive decisions. Based on our analysis of 568 tribunal cases since 2021, we can show you exactly what works, what doesn't, and which factors have the worst track records.

This guide provides a practical escalation pathway for every common dispute: what to try first, when to escalate, and how to win at tribunal if needed. The key insight from successful complainants is consistent: document everything, cite specific Code sections, and follow the formal process. Vague complaints about "bad service" rarely succeed; linking your grievances to numbered paragraphs of the Code transforms a plea into a legal demand.

This guide draws on our independent analysis of 568 Housing and Property Chamber decisions, 17,000+ customer reviews, and regulatory data for all 302 registered Scottish property factors.

Why Scottish homeowners now have real power

Before October 2012, challenging a property factor meant expensive Sheriff Court litigation with no guarantee of success. The Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 changed everything by creating three crucial protections: compulsory registration (making it a criminal offence to operate unregistered), a legally binding Code of Conduct setting minimum standards, and access to the Housing and Property Chamber—a free, specialist tribunal designed for homeowners without lawyers.

The Code was strengthened significantly in August 2021 with tighter communication requirements and new Overarching Standards of Practice (OSPs). These OSPs require factors to be "honest, open, transparent and fair" in their dealings with homeowners—acting as a catch-all for professionally unacceptable behaviour that might not fit neatly into a specific procedural clause.

What the Code of Conduct actually requires

The Property Factors Code of Conduct 2021 sets legally enforceable minimum standards across seven key areas. When writing to your factor, citing the relevant section number demonstrates you know your rights and signals that tribunal is a realistic next step.

Communication obligations (Section 2)

Covers: "factor won't reply to emails", "factor ignoring me", "factor not responding"

The breakdown of communication is the most common trigger for complaints—our data shows it is cited in 84% of upheld tribunal cases (250 of 299, often alongside other breach types). Section 2 places a heavy burden on factors to be responsive:

Section 2.5 requires factors to provide a full postal address, telephone number, contact email, and out-of-hours emergency arrangements.

Section 2.7 requires factors to respond to enquiries and complaints "within the timescales confirmed in their Written Statement of Services" and otherwise "as quickly and as fully as possible".

Overarching Standard OSP11 states factors "must respond to enquiries and complaints within reasonable timescales."

What constitutes a breach? Sending three emails over a month without acknowledgment is a clear breach. Receiving a reply that ignores your specific questions can breach OSP4, which bars information that is "deliberately or negligently misleading or false". Refusing to send paper copies to homeowners without internet access breaches Section 2.3.

Repair handling (Section 6)

Covers: "factor ignoring repair requests", "factor won't fix repairs"

Unlike communication, the Code doesn't prescribe fixed repair timescales. Instead, factors must handle repairs in an "appropriate timescale" depending on urgency. However, the Code requires:

Section 6.3 requires factors to have procedures for reporting repairs and to keep owners informed of progress.

Section 6.3-6.4 requires factors to arrange inspections and repairs "in an appropriate timescale" while keeping homeowners informed of progress. If a repair is delayed, the factor must provide updates—silence is never acceptable.

Section 6.6 requires factors to demonstrate "how and why they appointed contractors" and balance cost with "likely quality and longevity." This is your weapon against expensive contractors.

Section 6.12 requires the factor, if asked, to liaise with contractors about substandard work and to say whether a collateral warranty is available.

Section 6.10 requires factors to disclose "in writing" any commission, rebate, or payment received from contractors.

The WSS must state target times for both routine and emergency repairs. If it says "emergency repairs within 24 hours" and your burst pipe sits for a week, that's a clear breach.

Financial transparency (Section 3)

Covers: "property factor overcharging", "how to challenge factor invoice", "factor charging too much"

Financial disputes often arise from lack of clarity. The Code provides powerful transparency rights:

Section 3.4 requires a clear breakdown of charges. A single line saying "Maintenance: £500" is insufficient—it must detail the nature of work, the contractor, and the date.

Section 3.4 mandates factors provide homeowners "at least once a year" with a detailed financial statement showing "a breakdown of charges made and a detailed description of the activities and works charged out."

Sections 3.9 and 3.11 require factors to keep client funds (floats, sinking funds) separate from their own business funds in dedicated accounts.

Section 5.5 requires disclosure of any commission or administration fee received from insurance arrangements.

Under Section 3.4, homeowners can request supporting documentation ("vouchers") for charges. You can ask to see the contractor's invoice. If the factor refuses or charges exorbitant fees for this simple request, they risk breaching the Code. Financial transparency complaints feature in 44% of upheld tribunal cases in our database—the third most common breach category after communication and maintenance.

Float and sinking fund management (Sections 3.5-3.12)

Covers: "factor not returning float", "factor withholding sinking fund"

Floats are a frequent flashpoint. The Code requires:

Section 3.6 states factors "must return all funds due to homeowners (less any outstanding debts) automatically at the point of settlement of final bill, following a change of property factor."

Section 3.5 requires financial information within 3 months of termination unless there's good reason for delay.

Section 3.11 requires homeowner funds to be "held in a separate account from the property factor's own funds."

Section 3.12 requires sinking or reserve funds to be held in "an interest-bearing account... in the name of each separate group of homeowners."

If your factor is withholding funds beyond 3 months without explanation after you've sold or switched factors, they're breaching the Code.

Fee changes and notice (Section 1.5)

Covers: "factor increased fees without notice"

Section 1.5(C)(6) requires the WSS to include "the property factor's policy for reviewing and increasing or decreasing this management fee."

Section 1.2 requires factors to provide an updated WSS "at the earliest opportunity (in a period not exceeding 3 months)" where substantial changes are made.

The Code doesn't mandate a specific advance notice period for fee increases—this is a gap. However, if your WSS says "fees reviewed annually with 3 months' notice" and the factor imposes an increase immediately, that breaches their own terms.

The practical escalation pathway

Most disputes can be resolved without tribunal if you follow a structured approach. But documentation at every stage builds your case if formal action becomes necessary.

If you've reached the point of considering tribunal action, you may also want to explore switching factors entirely. Many homeowners pursue both tracks simultaneously—complaining formally while organising a vote to change factor.

The Housing and Property Chamber process

The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) handles property factor disputes. It's free to apply, legal representation isn't required, and the process is designed to be accessible.

Making your application

Download the application form from the Housing and Property Chamber and email it to HPCAdmin@scotcourtstribunals.gov.uk, or post to: First-tier Tribunal (Housing and Property Chamber), Glasgow Tribunals Centre, 20 York Street, Glasgow G2 8GT. Before applying, research how the tribunal has ruled in similar cases against your factor on their Compare Factors profile—knowing prior outcomes strengthens your application.

Required attachments (all mandatory):

What happens next

The Sift: A legal member checks the application has a chance of success and includes everything required. It's a high bar: in 2024-25 the Chamber rejected 28 of the 250 property factor applications it closed (11%), usually for missing information or a missed step.

Case Management Discussion: A two-person tribunal meets by teleconference to clarify issues and explore settlement.

Evidential Hearing (if needed): If facts are disputed, a full hearing is scheduled. You can give evidence, call witnesses, and challenge the factor's position.

Decision: The tribunal publishes a written decision. If it finds the factor breached the Code or failed in duties, it decides whether to make a Property Factor Enforcement Order (PFEO) — it first proposes the order and lets both sides comment (section 19).

What the tribunal can order

A PFEO is a legally binding order. Across the 568 cases in our database, the tribunal has issued 194 enforcement orders and awarded over £157,226 in compensation across 224 awards. The tribunal can require the factor to:

A Property Factor Enforcement Order can require the factor to pay compensation, refund or return money owed, and carry out specific work. Across the 568 decisions in our database the tribunal has awarded £157,226 in compensation across 224 awards.

Failure to comply with a PFEO is a criminal offence under Section 24 of the 2011 Act. The tribunal reports non-compliance to Scottish Ministers; the factor can be prosecuted and/or removed from the register. Some factors have received multiple enforcement orders—James Gibb, Charles White, and Lowther Homes all have significant PFEO histories you can review on their profiles.

Real tribunal cases and what they won

These real outcomes illustrate what the tribunal can do. You can browse the full tribunal record for any factor on their Compare Factors profile—including case summaries, breach categories, and enforcement order history.

James Gibb appears in two of these examples; it has more tribunal cases in our database than any other factor, with 104 since 2021 (see its tribunal record).

Gordon v James Gibb Property Management (2018) — FTS/HPC/PF/17/0274

What happened: The tribunal couldn't establish what had happened to £72,445 apparently missing from the development's sinking fund. A roof leak had gone unrepaired for more than 406 days despite 19 follow-up emails. Works went ahead without owners' written approval.

Code breaches found: Section 1 (preamble), 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6.

Order (20 March 2018): £750 compensation, an independent audit of the sinking fund at the factor's expense, and an independent survey of the building works at the factor's expense.

What happened next: The £750 was paid. The audit found a £4,200 shortfall the factor admitted it couldn't explain. The first survey wasn't good enough, so the tribunal issued a direction (4 June 2018). After a supplementary survey, the tribunal certified full compliance on 27 June 2018.

McGaw v James Gibb Property Management (2024) — FTS/HPC/PF/23/2449

The issue: Repairs to the common entry door, door-entry panel and windows stalled for over a year, and the factor stopped answering emails and a formal complaint.

Outcome: Enforcement order for breaches of Code sections 2.7, 6.4 and 7.1 and the overarching standards — repairs not progressed, owners not kept informed, and the complaint not handled under the factor's own procedure. Our records show the order has since been complied with.

Float increases without consultation — Hacking & Paterson (2025), FTS/HPC/PF/24/3846

The issue: The factor raised the float from £350 to £500 and told owners only as it billed them.

Outcome: Breach, no order — the tribunal found the factor hadn't consulted properly (Code 2.1) but made no enforcement order.

Building your case: evidence and documentation

Successful tribunal complainants consistently emphasise documentation. The tribunal examines whether factors met specific, numbered Code requirements—vague complaints rarely succeed.

Evidence log format

Maintain a contemporaneous log:

Templates for your complaint

Before writing, check your factor's profile on Compare Factors to see if they have existing tribunal cases or enforcement orders—mentioning their track record in your complaint letter signals you've done your homework. Factors with prior PFEOs, such as Charles White or Trinity Factoring, may be more responsive to a well-documented formal complaint.

Formal complaint letter (Phase 2)

Section 17 Notification (Phase 4)

Alternative routes when tribunal isn't the right path

Simple Procedure (Small Claims Court)

For purely monetary disputes up to £5,000 where the Code isn't the main issue (e.g., "The factor owes me £200 for an overpayment"), Sheriff Court Simple Procedure is an option.

Drawback: Cannot order PFEOs or Code compliance—only money

Use tribunal if you want the factor to change practices; use Simple Procedure if you just want money back.

Mediation

Changing your factor

If the relationship is broken, collective action may be better than litigation. Under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004, a majority of owners (not unanimity) can change factors in most cases. Since 1 April 2026, Section 64(1) of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 — as amended by Section 70 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 (S.S.I. 2026/115) — lets a simple majority of owners dismiss and replace a factor whatever your title deeds say. A vote taken before that date was under the old higher threshold.

Research replacement factors thoroughly before switching. Compare Factors provides independent profiles of Scottish property factors including tribunal complaint history, coverage areas, and aggregated reviews—useful for shortlisting before you request quotes.

Conclusion: turning the tide

The relationship between homeowner and factor is inherently unequal—the factor holds the information, the contracts, and the funds. But the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 was designed to rebalance this equation. With homeowners succeeding in 74% of substantive decisions in our dataset, the tools for resolution are in your hands.

For the frustrated homeowner, the path forward is clear: Document, Categorise, and Escalate. By meticulously linking every frustration to a specific clause in the Code of Conduct, and by rigorously following the notification procedures, you transform a complaint from a "nuisance" into a legal liability that the factor cannot ignore.

The most common mistake is assuming nothing can be done. The most common failure is lodging vague complaints without citing specific Code sections. Success requires treating your complaint as seriously as any legal matter—thorough documentation, precise references, and realistic expectations about timescales.

With 568 tribunal decisions tracked, 17,000+ customer reviews aggregated, and every registered factor profiled, the information asymmetry that once protected poor factors is disappearing. Start by looking up your factor to see their tribunal history, then follow the steps in this guide.