Recent rulings in the Upper Tribunal for Scotland reinforce that precision and good advice are key to ending tenancies efficiently and securely.
To say that every step in the process of ending a tenancy must be followed properly may seem like stating the obvious. But recent rulings have underlined the importance of landlords not just acting properly, but precisely. With sound legal advice. The simple fact of the matter is that there really is little room for error in what you do - and, critically, how you do it - when ending tenancies.
Recent decisions of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland have consistently shown that the slightest deficiency in a Notice to Leave can prove costly, even if the mistake does not ultimately prevent the eviction from happening.
For example, the key consideration of one eviction case was whether the landlord’s failure to complete all of the form required to end the tenancy could invalidate it. Were that the case, the landlord would face having to start again by serving a new one - more than 12 months after the original.
In this case, an entire part of the notice to leave form was not completed. The tenant argued that this invalidated the notice, even after the landlord clarified their position on what the part should have said, as it was too little too late.
Ultimately, both the First-tier and Upper Tribunals ruled the intention of the landlord was clear, with a proper notice period, and the tenant was not ‘materially affected’ by the error. However, in deeming that the notice was valid, the landlord incurred significant costs and delays which could have been avoided had the proper legal procedures been followed in the first place.
Investing in legal advice from the outset - even in the most straightforward of situations - can reduce the risk of this happening.
This is a point highlighted by another recently published Upper Tribunal ruling - an appeal by a landlord against a decision by the FTT that the landlord's notice to leave was invalid.
The reason it was deemed invalid was that it stated a notice period which was too short (83 days instead of 84 days). The FTT’s standard approach has long been to reject eviction applications immediately if the notice period is even one day short.
In this case, however, the landlord appealed the FTT’s rejection. The Upper Tribunal decided that it was not correct that notices to leave are automatically invalid simply because the notice period is too short. They might still be valid if it is determined the error did not “prejudice” the tenant.
The implication of this is that if a notice might be invalid, the FTT will need to hold a hearing of evidence and assess the circumstances of each case before it can decide the validity of the notice.
It is difficult to say if this is much of a victory for landlords.
While it might allow for notices with small mistakes to proceed to a more substantial hearing, there is still the large risk that - after entertaining the application for longer - the FTT will still decide the error is inexcusable.
That could realistically mean the landlord is told as much as two years after the notice was served that their notice is invalid and they need to start all over again.
Furthermore, the FTT now has to make space to entertain eviction applications which might ultimately be fundamentally invalid, despite the FTT’s capacity already being at breaking point.
It is noteworthy that both of the above cases involved appeals to the Upper Tribunal against decisions by the FTT. It is important to remember, though, that the Upper Tribunal does not exist as a ‘retrial’. Appeals are only about legal issues, not factual ones. There can often be a misconception about that among tenants. For this reason, it is never wise to rely on the potential to appeal.
So many problems can be avoided by getting things right from the start.
Lawyer Adam Gardiner is an Associate in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation team at Lindsays, who advise landlords across Scotland.
Published 20 October 2025. Featured in Landlord Focus magazine in Setpember 2025.