Add Comment

Whilst i agree that some factoring companies (generally the smaller ones)do not offer the best service to their customers, i think it is unfair to tar all factors with the same brush. I worked for one of the largest factors for 10 years and at all times the aim of the company was to assist the owners in the maintenance of their property. Some owners simply do not understand the role of factors - it is not their job to fund maintenance at properties but to assist the owners in the maintenance. If there are uncooperative owners and tenanted properties the factors can meet a brick wall in trying to get repairs done or even getting a reply to correspondence. As a property manager it was not unusual to face verbal and even physical abuse from clients generally on a daily basis which was totally demoralising when all you were trying to do was assist an owner.

I am unsure what the factor (Ross and Lidell?) have done wrong - if people dont put rubbish in their bins then the factor can hardly be held responsible. The article seems a bit inflammatory and biased to me.

[bold]This is the full response provided to the Evening Times which provides greater clarification than obviously the paper would have space to publish.[/bold] [bold]CLYDE STREET, CARRICK QUAY[/bold] Please be assured that we, as Managing Agents, would be happy to follow any instructions received by us from Carrick Quay Owners Association and have done so since our appointment. Over the last few years, we have put several proposals to the Committee and have been frustrated by the lack of instructions received, particularly in relation to roof maintenance, smoke pressurization system, mail box alterations and the external redecoration to name a few. We are aware that problems with the roof exist and external redecoration is overdue, competitive estimates have been obtained and recommendations have been put to the Committee, however we are limited in what action we can take, if we do not receive instructions from the Committee. The external painting was due in 2006, this was duly discussed at the meeting of co-proprietors, at the AGM in October 2005. The Committee agreed to obtain an independent inspection on the condition of the paint work and subject to these quotations for cleaning and repainting being obtained. We received no instructions from the Committee, nor was the independent report passed to us. The matter was again raised at the AGM in October 2006 following which we were asked to obtain estimates, at which time, we contacted the secretary to establish the scope of the work and highlighted the fact that previously the external redecoration was overseen by our building surveyors, as work of this nature and magnitude is outwith our remit as Managing Agents. Mr. Arbuckle, the Secretary of the Association, agreed that it would make sense to appoint a surveyor to oversee redecoration, we provided them with a quote for our surveyors, following which were asked to obtain a further two quotes. This was duly undertaken with quotes being obtained from **** and **** and **** both of which were more expensive than that quoted by our in-house surveyors. Having clarified a number of points raised by the Chairman and Secretary, we were then requested to obtain 2 estimates for painting based on the previous specification of 2001 despite the fact our surveyors were of the opinion that the specification required should be updated to take into consideration the present condition and materials required. We obtained the 2 quotes requested, however these, as we suspected, differed considerably. The Secretary then asked us to return to the contractors to ask them to review their prices as he considered them to be excessive. As previously mentioned, work of this nature is outwith our remit, however we did do everything we possibly could to assist the Residents Association in allowing them to reach a decision, the current position is that Mr. Arbuckle, having considered the 2 quotes obtained, now accepts that the variance is substantial and has asked us, once again, to return to the contractors to re-assess only essential work needed and invite a further contractor to tender, however we are of the opinion and have informed Mr. Arbuckle that to take this contract forward they should, as we initially recommended, put this in the hands of a Building Surveyor either in-house or independent surveyors. At the EGM on 17th December, 2007 our recommendations was put to the body of proprietors and it was agreed unanimously that an independent building survey should be commissioned, this is being dealt with by the Committee and we await further instructions. You will no doubt appreciate that all of the aforementioned could have been avoided had the Committee taken our initial recommendations. We would repudiate any allegations made, that we do not communicate with the Residents Committee. Over the last year there has been approximately 250 e-mails between the Property Manager and the Chairman/Secretary of the Association, this does not take into account normal correspondence from individual clients etc. We would confirm that, prior to half-yearly accounts being rendered to all proprietors, we provided Mr. Le Vell with copies of all tradesmens invoices for inspection and approval giving 7 days to return to us, failing which we would circulate and issue. At the last accounting period we duly hand delivered copies of all trademens invoices, Mr. Le Vell confirmed receipt on 5th May, 2007, suggesting that 7 days were not sufficient and asked that the common charges accounts are not issued prior to the 18th May. Despite the fact that payment is indeed due on the 15th May, we agreed to hold back the accounts giving him ample time to check. He was then e-mailed on the 21st May asking for confirmation, he did not return to us, hence the reason we were left with no option other than to calculate and issue. Since then we have had no query in relation to his payment, despite the fact he has not paid. Initially a ground maintenance contract was in place, however at the request of the Committee this was cancelled. In recent years the cleaning contractor has undertaken a general tidy up of the moat and car park areas at a cost of £45.00 per month. You will no doubt appreciate that for £11 per week it merely covers litter collection, it is not going to be to the same standard of that provided by a grounds contractor. I trust the foregoing helps clarify our position.

[bold]This is the full response provided to the Evening Times which provides greater clarification than obviously the paper would have space to publish. GREENHEAD STREET[/bold] We are fully aware of the problems that exist with refuse disposal, in that whilst it is the proprietor’s responsibility to secure and deposit refuse and arrange for the wheeled bins to be taken from the bin enclosure to a pick up point at James Street every Thursday, they are not adhering to these procedures, hence the ongoing problems. The problems are exacerbated by the fact that a number of flats are sub let, and a number of owners have failed to purchase wheeled bins, which in itself adds to the existing problems. We contacted Environmental Protection requesting their intervention, they in turn visited the property and informed us that they would take similar action to ourselves, however they would require work to be undertaken at the weekend, which could result in greater expense to the proprietors. As managing agents it has been necessary for us to take action by instructing contractors to uplift any bulk refuse which has been left lying about, as failure to do so may well result in vermin problems. We have written to the proprietors on numerous occasions, highlighting problems and outlining procedures to refuse disposal and uplift in addition we have also informed them of procedure to follow in relation to bulk refuse. It has been mentioned by a particular resident that they are not prepared to pay for cleaning the bin enclosures, since they deposits their refuse correctly, however this work is instructed on a communal basis and all proprietors are liable in accordance with the Deed of Condition to pay a proportionate share. The cost quoted of approximately £300 was for clearing 7 bin enclosures not 1 as suggested. Given the nature of the work undertaken we are of the opinion that the price charged was not excessive.

The good news about these particular developments is that the owners seem to have the right to get rid of their Factors if they are not happy.Some developments have it built into the Deed of Conditions that you can't shift your Factor. This particular story seems to be a wee spat between owners and factors over maintenance but there is a deeper underlying problem of which these buildings may be a part but is now becoming apparent in a lot of new private build in Glasgow. A careful look at a lot of these new developments,some in the southside,especially on a rainy day,reveals some tacky buildings that are not the slums of tomorrow but are now morphing into the slums of today. From external cheap looking claddings,wooden exterior frames high and inaccessible and already deteriorating,green gunge,ugly external pipework, and the total eyesore of sky dishes and wires flapping about drilled in the wall of the buildings makes you wonder if anybody in Glasgow District Council and it's planning department has any brains or taste to give planning consent. The ones with a solid brick finish are ok,but a lot of these glitzy buildings are not fit for purpose to withstand the Scottish weather.

WE LIVE IN FLATS IN VICARLAND PLACE, CAMBUSLANG. OUR FACTOR IS HACKING AND PATERSON. THEIR FEES ARE UNBELIEVABLE. WE CHANGE OUR OWN BULBS AND ALL THE RESIDENTS CLUB TOGETHER TO BUY A STOCK OF BULBS AND ONE GENTLEMAN KINDLY REPLACES THEM. WE HAD ALSO HAD A STANK WHICH DEVELOPED A HOLE THIS WAS OFCOURSE DANGEROUS, AS THERE ARE A LOT OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS IN VICARLAND PLACE. MY HUSBAND CALLED INTO THE FACTOR'S OFFICE AND THE FEMALE WHO WORKED IN THE OFFICE SAID SHE HAD NEVER VISITED VICARLAND PLACE DID NOT KNOW WHERE IT WAS AND WOULD MY HUSBAND MEET THE GUY WHO WAS GOING TO REPAIR THE HOLE AND SHOW HIM WHERE IT WAS. HACKING AND PATERSON GAVE THIS WORKMAN MY HUSBAND'S MOBILE, HE CAME HOME FROM WORK AND SHOWED THE GUY THE HOLE. WE GOT A BILL FOR OVER £100 FOR THIS. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE. THE GARDNERS ALSO COME IN THE SUMMER AND ALL THEY DO IS CUT THE GRASS AND THAT COSTS US A FORTUNE. OUR QUARTERLY BILL IS USUALLY £150. THERE ARE 40 FLATS IN VICARLAND PLACE SO £150 X 40 IS A LOT OF MONEY FOR NOTHING. MRS ANGELA MCKENNA (NOT ELDERLY)

I have had problems with factors in my last property, and the breaking point was when they sent a plumber to fix a hole in the roof. We refused to pay the extortionate fee and were taken to court. At least this saved us the problem of trying to sack them as they decided they didnt want us anymore. In my current property we are charged factors fees for ground maintenance at the front of the estate but the properties at the rear don't get anything done but still have to pay the fees.

ang21din, Glasgow. You took the words right out of my mouth! I too have my flats under the factoring of the overcharging, lazy factors - "Hacking & Paterson." I have tried on a number of occasions to get all residents in my close to agree to switching to the Housing Association - who were willing to take on / factor extra properties. However, the Housing Association said they did not recieve enough of the 50%+ forms back to ensure they had a majority of tenants / landlords in agreement to the switch. Basically, the problem was the Survey which would cost 9 if my mind serves me right) £1,000 split between the 6 flats within the close. This was the stumbling block. However, long term the Housing Associations programme of maintainence, close painting, repairs and general workmanship was / is cheaper and of higher standard. The larger Housing Associations which are growing, merging and are buiding more stock are by no means perfect. But, they are alot better than "Hacking And Paterson" and by the looks of things "Ross And Liddell!" People must be more aware of their rights, and options, and read up on the terms & conditions of their factors. Maybe, and only then they wouldn't feel trapped in paying excessive factoring fees - with minimal work and maintainence carried out for the money.

Mt factor is Hacking & Patterson for Paisley Rd West in Kinning Park. I get a quarterly bill and on it is a £27.50 "Management fee" there are 10 people up my close you do the maths - 10 x £27.50 x 4 (quarters) = £1100 a year. I still don't know what they do for this managemtn fee (and i have asked)because to my knowledge the one problem we had (control entry system not working) I had to phone their contractor up myself to arrange a time for them to come out!!!. So i refused to pay the bill and paid the amount required directly to Walker Security. The factor has sent me one red letter and this work was done over 5 months ago so i think they've given up trying to get money off me when i suggested i didn't think them telling me what company to call and me having to call them myself justified a £27.50 fee. We don't get anything done by them if we can help it. We wanted new bins - we contacted the envoironmental services and they gave us 10 wheeelie bins free of charge and some blue recycling bins & bags. We refused to pay a charge for cleaning the bin shelter because they cleaned the WRONG ONE (next close instead). They threatened the close with court action but we contacted the local MSP Nicola Sturgeon whose office is 50 yards away, showed her the bins she sent them a letter and we haven't heard anything from them since and they still haven't been paid and that was 6 months ago. My advise is stand your ground, get your MSP, MP or Councillor involved (that's what they're paid for) and you'll soon see your factor run for cover.

Exactly Terencej72, Your problem stated ( below) is exactly the same as the one I am facing. for different reasons perhaps. [italic]One problem we had (control entry system not working) I had to phone their contractor up myself to arrange a time for them to come out!!!. So i refused to pay the bill and paid the amount required directly to Walker Security.[/italic] To be frank - the neighbour was so troublesome that their mulitple male partners were kicking in the front door - so any Secure Entry is a joke! The whole door & frame on my close needs replaced, as it's so damaged. But - unless all those within the close are prepared to pay the exorbitant fees H & P charge it will never be fixed! Another way of looking at H.P. is it's the name of a Sauce - HP Sauce, and our money pours out our accounts to them like HP Sauce! And the taste of their workmanship isn't nearly as nice!

Ross and Liddle are complete fools. And the indviduals that you speak to when you phone up clearly have next to no interest in their job aside from to do as little as possible. Murphy Scholar are also shockingly bad factors and I have many stores to tell about them. The girls that answer the phones there appear to relish the shocking service thats dished out. EVENING TIMES, you contacted me before to ask if I wanted to comment on factor related stories and If you still want me im here.

[quote]EVENING TIMES, you contacted me before to ask if I wanted to comment on factor related stories and If you still want me im [bold]here[/bold] .[/quote] Quite sure the Evening Times wants you! We the forum contributors have probably got more brains between us than the whole of the Newspaper industry put together! WOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT! [bold]"here"[/bold] - being floating aimlessly in cyberspace I presume ? . ? .

Well, at Riverside Park we used to have Hacking and whats'it, and the word [quote]useless[/quote] never came near it. First, they were in cahoots with the developers to make sure that we couldn't get any snagging done in public areas - hackers accepted the building in an attrocious state - gutters and roofing mainly: one comment from them was "well it only leaks when it rains"... and the scams - renting out the door entry phone system that we owned back to us.... ad nauseam So we started to try and get them off. and they just sued us. well i hung on in and after three years hackers just walked off the job ... and then tried to sue me AGAIN for the £50,000 in costs - chucked out of court of course. so we took on peverel - and for the first five years under colin campbell they were brilliant... and really the place glistened, and everyone was happy. then peverel got bought by some american rogues and hired a bent lawyer ... and sacked colin and in two years we went from great to disasterous where we still are. gas cupboard doors fall off - not painted for six years - says five in the deeds. and lies lies and more lies. what Mr Andrew Todd is wrong with telling the truth ? he said ICI inspected the external painting which was carried out in november in the rain whilst it was being done and said that ICI said it was ok. try reading the instructions on the tin: NO PAINTING when its wet, and not at all for the three months each side of xmas anyway. anyway ICI's tech division never heard of peverel .... let alone an inspection they did for them Anyway Bagley (the bent lawyer) sued me, and after three years well Peverel went bust (december 2006) and are now owned by Vincent Tchenguiz from an armenian jewish family who went to iraq, then to iran where they ran the teasury for the shah, and then to london when he left. peverel sacked bagley, and ran away from the court of session - so the rule is STAND up against them - got to court, but be prepared for avery arduous session, and dont forget that most sherriff's used to work for law firms whose main business came from factors suing people .... so now our "float" is I guess being used for things like financing his buy out of the M&B pub chain. lat thing dont forget that factors bribe a few residents to make sure they DONT get chucked off - new bathroom on the insurance, creating fictitious "residents associations" that sue other residents - like Angus McIver - ex policeman ... and of course lose - with peverel paying the bill ... delay worry and suspense ... so beware patricia its a murky underworld you are setting out to clean up. but its a national disgrace. colin now runs LPM or something - definiteley a "good firm" - tho they do have problems when "buy to let" people and firms refuse to pay. so let get em regulated and those that sin, let them be sent MANDATORILY to prison.

It's important to get this topic into some kind of perspective. Like any type of business, there are good factors and bad factors and I am sure you will find that hte majority of factors are more than happy to see some form of registration appear in statute. Indeed there is professional body already in Scotland - PMAS - who have a code of practice that all members must adhere to. If you're factor is not already a member perhaps you should ask why? Factors are fairly easy pickings when it comes to criticism as often the common charges are seen as unreasonable to some and come as a shock to others. However, in communal buildings it is increasingly important to have some form of management as the residents often do not have the time or inclination to deal with such issues themselves nor do they have access to any credit control procedures for those who do not pay their share. All I would say is that there are 2 sides to every story and it does appear that some people with a gripe seem to think that all wil be made better by running to the media with a good story. Factors are "a necessary evil" you could say as life without them would be very difficult but perhaps regulation is overdue. One other small point about those grumbling about common buildings policy - be careful as you need to compare like with like. A common policy will also cover the common areas - landings, intertnal car park etc. and this is not always factored in on a private buildings quote.