A HOMEOWNER has won his fight against a property factor which doubled a maintenance float charge.

Hacking and Paterson increased the float on properties from £100 to £200, but owner Colin Park took the case to the Homeowner Housing Panel, claiming it had no authority as the amount was set out in the flat's Deed of Conditions.

The factor has been told to apologise and pay £200 to Mr Park for inconvenience and remove the increases and any charges from his account.

The Evening Times reported the hearing, which took place in Glasgow in April.

H&P boss, David Lennox, claimed to the panel the firm was not bound by the Deed of conditions and was not using it as authority for the increase and said if homeowners in general do not agree to pay for the maintenance, Scotland's housing stock would be at risk.

The factor said it increased the float under "custom and practice" and claimed the firm had not breached the Property Factors Act.

The Homeowner Housing Panel decision found the factor did derive its authority form the Deed of Conditions, referring to a letter to owners relating to H&P being appointed under the deeds and outlining owners' maintenance responsibilities.

The panel found: "There was no course of acting by either party prior to October 2012, which suggested that the factor had implied authority through custom and practice to review the float level.

"The factor was content to utilise the provisions of the Deed of Conditions when it suited their purposes, i.e in relation to debt collection."

Mr Park, who contested the increase for three flats in Leven Road, Hamilton, said: "I think the decision is embarrassing for the factor.

"Some people might just have paid the £100, but it was never about the amount, it was the principle that it did not have the authority to act."

The panel accepted Hacking and Paterson had a genuine belief that implied authority on the basis of custom and practice and did not believe Hacking and Paterson had deliberately set out to misrepresent the situation to homeowners.

However it found it had breached the code of practice in increasing the float amount.

A spokesman for Hacking and Paterson said they were not able to comment as they regard it as a matter between company and clients.