Sham sales of privately rented homes and wrongful-termination orders : Reynolds v Henry 2024 UT 45

Combe, Malcolm (2024) Sham sales of privately rented homes and wrongful-termination orders : Reynolds v Henry 2024 UT 45. Scots Law Times. ISSN 0036-908X (In Press)

[thumbnail of Sham sales and WTOs Reynolds v Henry - Combe - SLT News] Text. Filename: Sham_sales_and_WTOs_Reynolds_v_Henry_-_Combe_-_SLT_News.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 1 January 2099.
Download (101kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The Upper Tribunal for Scotland recently allowed an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Housing and Property Chamber), relating to a former tenant’s claim against her former landlord for a wrongful-termination order in terms of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. Such orders are available – on the application of a former tenant – when the former landlord has somehow contrived a situation so as to make it appear that a valid ground to terminate a PRT exists and then either encourage a tenant to leave their home or perhaps even convince a tribunal to evict someone from their home when – in fact and in law – there was no need for the tenant to surrender possession. Where a tribunal decides a wrongful-termination order should be made, the former landlord must pay the applicant a penalty sum not exceeding six times the monthly rent that had been payable (the exact figure being at the tribunal’s discretion). As will be explained more fully below, in this situation the applicant vacated the let property owing to the landlord’s apparent plan to sell it. The property was indeed advertised for sale and some offers to purchase were received, but no offers were accepted (and the surrounding facts suggested that there was never any intention to accept an offer). The property was ultimately re-let to a new tenant. The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) was nevertheless of the view that this process had engaged the eviction ground “that the landlord intends to sell the property”, and as such declined to make any award to the applicant. The Upper Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, being of the view that the landlord’s apparent efforts towards sale were in fact a sham. The case was remitted for a full re-hearing before a freshly constituted tribunal.

ORCID iDs

Combe, Malcolm ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1711-9150;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)