By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Landlord pays thousands after Wrongful Termination Order

A landlord has been ordered to pay £2,400 to his former tenants after a tribunal appeal following the issuing of a Wrongful Termination Order.

The WTO - a Scottish legal provision - came about when a landlord in Glasgow provided a tenant with a Notice To Leave, stating the landlord and family wanted to move into and occupy the rental accommodation as their main home. However the property was then re-let to another tenant, prompting a court to issue the order.

Tenants Lesley Munro and Grant McNicoll argued that they would not have left the property had they not been given notice to leave by their landlord, David Ross. 


They argued that the reason their landlord had given them for giving notice to leave was erroneous given his conduct after they left the property.

The First Tier Tribunal which made the award heard that the tenants paid £800 a month until the landlord served a notice to leave in December last year. It was thought that the reason was that the landlord himself was to live in the property. The tenants then served their own notice to terminate the lease as they had found alternative accommodation. 

The tenancy subsequently came to an end on 13 January 2021, at which time the respondent moved into the property. 

But in early February - 19 days after taking possession - the property was put on the sales market, with an offer accepted the following month. 

In its decision the Tribunal says: “In just 19 days, the respondent’s position changed from recovering possession of the property so that he could use it as his own home, to selling the property on the open market.

“That is such a significant change in intention that it is realistic to expect the respondent to be able to explain what happened in two and a half weeks to create such a radical change in his intentions.”



It continues: “What we are left with is an unexplained change in the respondent’s position. All parties agree that the respondent sought to terminate the tenancy agreement on the basis that he intended to live in the property. If the applicants had done nothing in response to the notice to leave, the respondent could have raised an application for repossession with this chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. In any such application, the tribunal would look for evidence that the respondent intends to live in the property for at least three months.”

The Tribunal went on to say: “The only realistic conclusion that we can reach is that the respondent misled the applicants, and, as a result of his misrepresentation, the applicants surrendered occupation of the property.

“In assessing the quantum of the wrongful termination order we take into account of the impact of the respondent’s actions, the duration of the dishonesty, [and] the respondent’s continued adherence to that dishonesty. Against those aggravating factors, we balance the fact that the respondent has some health problems and his financial situation has been better.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    What does ownership mean, does it mean you buy it but everyone else have the rights over it. The Tenants can & do walk away any time they like without consequences or stay when they are not wanted.
    The problem with Tribunals sometimes they are staffed by ex-Council employees.

  • icon

    How dare you decide to sell your own property!!! What an absolute sh@t show.

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    As a fervent Landlord supporter, I nevertheless have to point that the landlord didn't Sell the property, he ' Re-let ' it.
    I do agree that Scotland is very draconian and anti-Landlord.


    The landlord was entitled to evict this pair to sell his property, which he did. His mistake was to give a different reason to them but both reasons are valid in Scotland, so this pair were not unjustly disadvantaged.

    The real question is why did the landlord not want these tenants?

    Clearly this pair have been rewarded for being the type of tenants not wanted by their landlord.

    I hope thy find it difficult to get a property of the standard of the one they clearly didn't deserve to keep living in.

  • icon

    Just beyond belief! Michael Foley, certainly seems that way doesn’t it.

  • icon

    That sounds like a bargain for David Ross, got rid of the tenants and also a rental property in the anti landlord state of Scotland.
    The question after this is who is the winner, the tenant or the tribunal or the landlord? Personally it sounds like the landlord, he can walk away from the legal grief but the tenant despite their few thousands will remain tenants and the tribunal have convinced quite a few other landlords to leave the sector.

  • icon

    There must have been a good reason this landlord wanted this tenant out, £2400 was a small price to pay.

  • Theodor Cable

    Certainly cheaper than having to go through the full Govt. and judicial system. Much faster too.
    And maybe he needed to sell the property anyway?

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Sorry Theodor, but he didn't need to sell the property, - he Re-let it.

    Theodor Cable

    #PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    It's his property.
    So if he wants to re let it, then that must be his right to do so.

  • icon

    Tenants gave their own notice got annoyed that LL changed his mind and this kangaroo court supported it.
    Remember the names Lesley Munro and Grant McNicoll when they ask for a rental. Make a good decision fellow LL’s

  • icon

    I think it outrageous he had to pay £2’400. for what ? This is a kin to what the Council’s are doing, they are pegging you for your property then Claw-back / Rent repayment Order, so the LL was required to house them for free, good trickery.

  • icon

    In response to @PossessionFriendUK The house was sold - "But in early February - 19 days after taking possession - the property was put on the sales market, with an offer accepted the following month."
    I don't see how it is of any concern of the previous tenants if they were able to find somewhere else to live.

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    I don't agree with the 'justice ' in the Scottish law, but nevertheless, in Scotland, it is illegal to evict for the stated purpose of selling, when the intention or act was to re-let.

  • icon

    Theodor, exactly right its his property whether he wants sell rent or keep, LL makes a huge financial commitment to purchase and very often another big spend to refurbish it, only for a temporary Tenant to come along and tell him what he can & can do with it. I have heard some on about this nonsense over last 6 / 7 years at the Council LL meeting talking through their hat now seem to have it in the rule book. Another miscarriage of Justice.


    Michael Foley
    When your tenants are paying off your debts, your financial commitments are zero. You carry risk and that is the game you are in. If you were renting out industrial units, you would face tougher rules and more regulations. Stop complaining.


    Wrong on just about every level.
    Tenants don’t pay off our debts
    Our financial commitment carries risk of interest rate increases, repairs insurance taxes etc
    Commercial leases have less rules are fully repairing and insuring and lease payment is protected if non payment

    This shows everyone the level of ignorance and bitterness out there. Don’t rent anything to these types. Check their social media beforehand avoid let them sleep on a friends sofa or wait for a council house. They will then have something to moan about

  • Daniela Provvedi

    @Echis R
    I didn't think Michael Foley was complaining; he just stated a fact. Furthermore, I agree with Jahan - our tenants don't pay off our debts; they pay for a service that we are providing.
    Zero financial commitments!!?? LOL.... Are you joking?

  • icon

    Echis,R, my friend there is no one paying off my debts. I always earned my living and paid my way. The fact that I house other people doesn’t mean that I should do it for free, it’s not my duty either and I am not the Social Security Office. What point are you insinuating, the Tenants are paying their own debts, many in arrears and many haven’t had an increase in years not withstanding the media tells us rent went up this last year 8%. It didn’t matter to me if I was never a LL. I earned my money primarily from Construction & Civil Engineering in the 60’s & 70’s when we had to work for real not soft jobs in red tape. I put my money into housing not the housing put the money into me. What are you complaining about that I facilitate others to live in comfort at reasonable cost. That I pay 40% tax on the remnants, to pay and maintain the property and pay local Authorities a big kick back, to be classed a Criminal on the eyes of the Law in recent times. I didn’t need to do any of this but I was doing it before the rule maker’s were born. I am just sorry it turned out this way and for my contribution and my Labour.

  • icon

    Tenants are not paying off my debts either, I don't have any, mine were all purchased with cash, my pension scheme .

  • icon

    One less property available for rent, probably thanks to a pair of undesirable tenants who made the landlord decide to sell up.

    The SNP dictatorship is really harming decent tenants and landlords but continuing to protect and now reward those tenants that no landlord wants.

  • icon

    What a bizarre decision. The landlord in December decides he wants to move into his property but in February decides to sell. In the intervening 1 or 2 months not 19 days he changed his mind. What is wrong with that? If I accept what Robert Brown says he could give notice on either ground ie sell or move in the result would be the same.

    In my part of the world selling a property with a tenant would probably fetch more but certainly no less than a vacant property. If the same applies in Scotland is clear evidence that the landlord has shot himself in the foot as he has lost a few months rent. I cannot see any landlord whether from Scotland or not doing that!

    I cannot see how any reasonable tribunal could come to the decision it did

    Jim Haliburton
    The HMO Daddy



    Both grounds are among a tiny handful which Scottish landlords can now use to get rid of bad tenants.

    There was one case where a woman had bought a ground floor flat for her invalid brother to move into when his illness worsened. In the meantime she rented it to tenants with their assurance that they would vacate it promptly when her brother needed it.

    They refused to do so and the tribunal refused to support the landlord on the grounds that landlords couldn't insist on such a term and the brother wasn't regarded as her family so none of the limited grounds for repossession applied here.

    Such is the situation that Scottish landlords now face. Only a 30% rise in rents which accompanied the Dec 2017 legislation makes it worthwhile now. Good tenants now pay more!

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Its Scottish law I'm afraid Jim. ( I don't agree with it either )

  • icon

    I agree with Jim for most part except for buying with Tenants in situ. I know many portfolio LL’s used to do this in years gone by, (an individual LL wouldn’t). The big LL especially at Auctions wasn’t too concerned if it was AST he knew there was an instrument to recover possession if it came to the worst. That’s no longer
    the case and very cautious now about buying another LL’s troubles. Start with a clean slate there will be enough issues without transporting historical problems.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up