{"id":8316,"date":"2023-09-12T11:20:12","date_gmt":"2023-09-12T11:20:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.citylets.co.uk\/blog\/?p=8316"},"modified":"2023-09-13T09:35:04","modified_gmt":"2023-09-13T09:35:04","slug":"evictions-to-renovate-properties","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.citylets.co.uk\/blog\/evictions-to-renovate-properties\/","title":{"rendered":"Evictions to Renovate Properties"},"content":{"rendered":"

With the changing legislative landscape for landlords, there is empirical and substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that landlords are seeking to recover possession more and more for reasons other than for rent arrears. Whether that be to sell properties to exit the private rented sector<\/a> (in whole or part) or to recover a property for themselves or for family members. Beyond that, the use of grounds seeking recovery of properties to renovate or carry out substantial works is also increasing. With that in mind, the Upper Tribunal has recently issued an interesting decision found here<\/a>\u00a0setting out what the correct approach the First-tier Tribunal should take when approaching such claims.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

What was the case about?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The landlord sought possession of the property, which was let under an assured tenancy, in terms of Ground 6 of Schedule 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Ground 6 applies where a landlord \u201cintends to demolish or reconstruct the whole or a substantial part of the house\u2026\u201d. Ground 6 is subject to the condition that the landlord \u201ccannot reasonably carry out the intended work without the tenant giving up possession of the house..\u201d because of various reasons set out in paragraph 6b) of Ground 6 which include that, even if the tenant accepts a variation of the tenancy, the work still cannot be carried out or that they refuse to grant such a variation. The basis of the notices served in this case was that the landlord wished to carry out extensive works including fitting central heating, providing a new water supply, new bathrooms and kitchens and remodelling the house to add rooms and extending it. In the first instance, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused the application, primarily on the basis that they had \u201csubstantial questions\u201d about the landlord\u2019s intention to do the works because of an expressed desire to transfer the property to his stepson to live in with his family. The landlord appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal, in granting the appeal, looked at the decision of the FTT and set out where they had erred in their approach to the case and Ground 6.<\/p>\n

What did the Upper Tribunal decide?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whilst there are various aspects to the decision setting out why the FTT erred in law, the Upper Tribunal confirmed that correct approach when assessing the landlord\u2019s intentions is whether the landlord has a \u201cfirm and settled intention to carry out the works<\/em>\u201d and the landlord\u2019s purpose or motive for such works is irrelevant. That would presumably also be the case where the intention was to subsequently sell the property after renovation. In this case, the FTT was criticised because they were guilty of \u201cspeculation<\/em>\u201d and approaching the case incorrectly when they made a finding (without any evidential basis) that the landlord would transfer the property to his stepson without carrying out the works and failing to properly address the question of the landlord\u2019s intentions in their findings. The Upper Tribunal further stated that there was \u201cnothing suspect<\/em>\u201d about a landlord seeking to dispose of the property in the future and that the desire to transfer the property to his stepson was a \u201clegitimate exercise of the Appellant\u2019s right to dispose of his property as he sees fit<\/em>\u201d. FTT were also criticised for seeking to impose an obligation on the landlord to consider how the works might be carried out without the tenants giving up possession rather than addressing whether the works could not reasonably be carried out without vacant possession. The Upper Tribunal set out the appropriate approach being that when considering ground 6, a tribunal should determine:<\/p>\n