STOP PRESS: The Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Act 2026 has received Royal Assent (April 2026). Certain provisions came into force on the day after Royal Assent, but the substantive provisions are to be commenced by regulations. Part 2 introduces default rules on: • rescission for breach (return/valuation of benefits and compensation for use/diminution), and • contractual retention Parties may contract out. These reforms may affect how rescission and rent‑retention are pled or advised upon in landlord/tenant disputes once in force. The main remedies available in the context of landlord and tenant disputes in Scotland are: • Interdict • Specific implement • Payment action • Damages action • Rescission • Retention of rent • Irritancy • Hypothec • Action for recovery of heritable property Interdict Interdict is a judicial remedy which can be used to prevent a breach or an anticipated breach of a legal obligation (including contractual obligations) by a party, eg in landlord and tenant disputes, it could

In the absence of an express covenant to repair in a lease, a landlord or tenant’s liability to repair will be limited. For landlords, it will depend on various common law and statutory provisions, and for tenants it depends on the doctrine of waste and an implied obligation to use the premises in a tenant-like manner. This Practice Note summarises those duties and provisions including covering what waste is, the different types of waste, what happens if a tenant allows a property to deteriorate and what use in a ‘tenant-like manner’ means. Landlord's repairing obligations The landlord will only have repairing obligations to the extent of any express obligations in the tenancy (in respect of which, see Practice Note: What is the appropriate standard of repair?). As such, in the absence of an express landlord covenant there will be no repairing obligation, subject to a few exceptions, including: • an obligation to ensure any retained premises are in such condition as to not cause damage to the tenant (although note

Property Disputes analysis: Lawrence McDonald, barrister at Exchange Chambers, discusses the Upper Tribunal (UT) (Lands Chamber) decision in Marlborough Park Services Ltd v Leitner, which clarified the circumstances in which the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (Property Chamber) might not have jurisdiction to consider a leaseholder’s application to determine the reasonableness of service charges.

Property Disputes analysis: In a much-needed and landlord-friendly decision, the Court of Appeal has brought clarity to the questions: (i) whether section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to service of certain tenancy documents required by legislation; (ii) the application of contractual deemed service provisions in a lease to those tenancy documents; and, (iii) the importance of the common law presumption about service by post. Written by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers, who represented the National Residential Landlords Association in the appeal.

Local Government analysis: The court dismissed an application by the homeless person, Ms Merritt (the claimant) for an interim injunction requiring the local authority and managing agent to re-admit them to the property. The claimant had been allowed to occupy the property pending a review of the local authority’s decision that it had discharged its housing duty towards them. The court held that there was no serious issue to be tried that the local authority had let or licensed the property to the claimant ‘as a dwelling’ as they were unable to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in R(N) v Lewisham. The court granted a cross-application from the managing agent for an interim injunction requiring the claimant to vacate the property, but suspended its operation until the expiry of the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) Regulations 2021 (the 2021 Regulations). Written by Matt Hutchings QC, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

Property Disputes analysis: The Privy Council have upheld a tenant's claim to terminate a lease following a landlord's repudiatory breach. While only technically persuasive as a precedent, this decision is of note, coming from judges at the highest level and expanding on previous authority. Written by David Jones, associate at Womble Bond Dickinson.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned Poundstretcher’s Part 26A restructuring plan, using cross-class cramdown (CCCD) to bind dissenting landlords, including those benefiting from parent company guarantees. The decision illustrates the application of the post-Adler, Thames Water and Petrofac principles to landlord restructuring plans, particularly the assessment of the relevant alternative, allocation of restructuring benefits and treatment of intra-group guarantees. Practitioners should ensure that explanatory materials address clearly and at an early stage the value of compromised guarantees and the guarantor’s position in the relevant alternative. The judgment also emphasises the need for sufficiently specific evidence supporting the proposed turnaround, appropriate market-pricing evidence where existing stakeholders provide funding, and consideration of practical consequences when applying the ‘no worse off’ test. Produced in partnership with Chris Christoforou, solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Property analysis: What are the statutory requirements regarding the calculation of residential service charges? A provision that the landlord’s surveyor’s determination of the proportion payable by the tenant was final and binding was void under the statutory regime.

An assured tenancy (AT) (and therefore an assured shorthold tenancy) cannot be brought to an end by the landlord, except by obtaining an order of the court for possession of the dwelling house under section 7 or 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) and the execution of it. Execution of the order is by the court bailiff. The landlord cannot exercise self-help even after obtaining a warrant. If a fixed-term AT comes to an end by effluxion of time, the tenant is entitled to remain in possession of the property

A landlord who failed to take out insurance in joint names, as required by its covenant to insure, was not entitled to reimbursement of the premium by the tenant.

Local Government analysis: An Upper Tribunal appeal determined by a three judge panel on the operation of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (the HB Regs), reg 101(2) governing the manner in which Housing Benefit (HB) can be recovered where benefit has been overpaid to a landlord. Regulation 101(2) allows for recovery from the tenant or from another party to whom the payment was made and so allows for recovery from a landlord where the landlord was in direct receipt of the benefit payment. A large overpayment had arisen after a tenant left her rented property, but the landlord went on being paid; the landlord unsuccessfully appealed from the First Tier Tribunal which had upheld the decision of the authority to recover from the landlord. The UT decision clarifies the operation of landlord recovery under regulation 101(2). Written by Kevin Long, housing solicitor at Hackney Community Law Centre.

A landlord’s development programme may affect their tenants, either in the premises or on neighbouring land. This checklist sets out some suggested steps that a landlord could take before and during development works, to help minimise potential claims by tenants arising from disruption. What should the landlord do before development starts? The landlord will need to understand the potential for dispute by: • having a comprehensive understanding of the proposed works programme, including the physical scope of the works, the facilities that the contractors will need, the likely duration, and the potential for noise and dust • checking the occupational leases: ◦ will the works trespass on any demised premises? See Practice Notes: Airspace development—guidance for landlords and developers and Alterations outside the demise—Definition of demised premises ◦ are there any easements that cannot be maintained throughout the development? ◦ can any easements and/or rights be varied? ◦ is there an alternative entrance/exit route? ◦ are there any provisions permitting development?