A TENANT who took his landlord to a tribunal after being kicked out of his flat is hoping his case will lead to an improvement in tenants’ rights.
After the hearing, the tribunal ruled that it was “not satisfied” that the landlord had broken letting rules but Barry Liddell hopes the publicity around the case will result in a change in the law.
And campaign group Living Rent said the case showed the need for rent controls that tie rents to properties so landlords have no incentive to evict tenants to increase rents.
Barry Liddell was told to get out of his rented flat in Glasgow’s Southside just before Christmas 2023 on the grounds that the owner wanted to sell the flat.
However, just a few days after he left the flat, it was advertised for rent.
Liddell had previously refused to accept any increase in his £500 a month rent unless his heating was upgraded and was shocked to find out that the property had been put up for let again – this time for £650 a month, a £150-a-month increase.
“I was told the landlord had the property valued but wasn’t happy with the valuation and had changed his mind about selling,” said Liddell. “There were only five working days between me leaving and them relisting it, so they wasted no time at all. It was up with new pictures before I had even got my deposit back.”
Liddell was so angry he took his case to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber).
The tribunal said that while Liddell had reason to be suspicious, there was no proof the landlord had intended to seek a new tenant between the dates of Liddell being given notice to leave and the date he left.
“The landlord claimed he changed his mind about selling due to poor market conditions because the value was less than he had expected, but he also claimed he had no knowledge of the rental advert and never asked for it to be posted anyway which are two contradictory positions,” said Liddell.
“The tribunal felt there was no proof the landlord had asked for the advert to be posted by the letting agency but even if there were, he was entitled to change his mind due to poor market conditions for a sale.
“I would only have had a case if I could have proved he intended to rent it out at the time when my notice to leave was issued, or if I could have proved he intended to rent it out between the dates when the notice was issued and the date I left.”
Liddell said it seemed clear that once a tenant had left, a landlord could rent the property out again, claiming the market for selling was poor and so they had changed their mind.
“The fact that the property goes up for rent once the tenant has left doesn’t seem to be regarded as proof that this was the intention all along,” said Liddell.
“Ultimately, my landlord did sell that property but I don’t think that was what he wanted to do. It was not the easy option and I think if he had thought he was going to be held accountable, he would not have attempted to re-let it.”
Liddell asked for leave to appeal the decision but this was rejected.
Living Rent chair Aditi Jehangir said the tribunal’s ruling highlighted how the penalties in place to hold landlords to account are not properly enforced.
“It should not be up to tenants to hold their landlords to account,” she said.
Misusing eviction grounds can lead to a penalty of six times the monthly rent but Jehangir said the rules were not being enforced.
“Across Scotland, landlords are evicting tenants claiming that they want to move a relative in or sell the property, only to then put the property back on the market and charge increased rent.
“This government needs to penalise landlords who break the rules and deliver rent controls that tie rents to a property so landlords are not incentivised to evict tenants to increase the rent.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Landlords must not mislead a tenant into ending a private residential tenancy.
“Where this practice happens, tenants can apply to the Housing Tribunal for a wrongful termination order and may be awarded up to six times the monthly rent.”
