The tenant, Ms Hernandez Diaz, had succeeded before the FTS in showing a breach of the repairing standard under section 14(1)(b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, based on an inspection and hearing on 5 February 2026. The roof was replaced in July 2026, but the landlords Amy Capes and Richard Carr argued the appeal was not academic because the order might affect their position on the Scottish Landlord Register.

The landlords advanced four grounds: that the FTS wrongly treated the weather as unexceptional, applied the wrong test under Wolfson v Forrester, gave inadequate reasons for rejecting their argument that damp sarking is normal in a traditional open slate roof, and ignored material considerations. Their original AI-assisted written grounds were criticised as vague and lengthy, though they were clarified at the oral hearing.

The Upper Tribunal found no arguable error of law on any ground:

• Weather: Overcast conditions with light to moderate rain were “self-evidently unexceptional in Scotland”. Any claim of exceptional weather needed supporting evidence at the hearing, which was not provided.
• Legal test: The FTS expressly referred to the statutory guidance incorporating Wolfson, and was entitled to rely on its own inspection findings of water affecting the roof and attic space, even without ingress into the living areas.
• Reasons and relevant matters: The reasons were “adequate and comprehensible”, and the FTS had considered the relevant material, including points favourable to the landlords.

The landlords’ disagreement with the FTS’s factual assessment did not amount to an error of law, so permission under section 46 of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 was refused.

A full case report has been published in Scottish Legal News.