Sheriff J Martin-Brown held that although a differently constituted tribunal might have decided that eviction was reasonable, the balancing exercise carried out by the First-tier Tribunal disclosed no error of law.

Langah Limited applied to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber for an eviction order against Mohammed Riaz and Mariyam Ahmed. A separate application for payment of rent arrears under the parties’ private residential tenancy agreement was granted in the sum of £8,554 on 20 January 2026, but the eviction application was refused on the same date.

The landlord appealed only the refusal of the eviction order. Of five grounds originally advanced, the First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal on one: whether it had erred by placing significant weight on the potential homelessness of the second respondent and her children. Permission in respect of the remaining grounds was refused, with a later application to the Upper Tribunal for permission on those grounds also unsuccessful.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff J Martin-Brown, with Olga Rashevskaia appearing on behalf of the appellant and the second respondent appearing in person.

Homelessness given most weight

For Langah Limited, it was submitted that the First-tier Tribunal had placed decisive weight on the prospect of the second respondent and her children becoming homeless without properly balancing that consideration against the seriousness and duration of the breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord argued that the tribunal had failed to consider whether the risk of homelessness resulted partly from the second respondent’s own financial and housing decisions, including prolonged non-payment of rent, prioritisation of other financial obligations and failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of eviction.

It was further submitted that payments had begun only after tribunal proceedings were raised and that there was no reliable basis on which to conclude that they would continue. The landlord maintained that the tribunal had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise, had given inadequate reasons and had reached a decision not reasonably open to it on the evidence.

The second respondent told the Upper Tribunal that the property was close to her children’s school and that she had been unable to find suitable alternative accommodation in the area. She said she was trying to maintain payments towards the rent and arrears but earned little from her employment and had recently been off sick.

Since the original tribunal hearing, the monthly rent had risen from £1,150 to £1,250. She was able to pay £1,300 each month, meaning that £50 rather than £150 was now being put towards the arrears.

‘Delicate exercise’

Sheriff Martin-Brown said she had “considerable sympathy” for the landlord’s position, noting that arrears of £8,554 would have taken almost five years to discharge at the rate of £150 per month. However, she continued: “an appeal on the merits of the case was not available to the appellant. The only basis for an appeal in terms of section 46 of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act was on a point of law.” The First-tier Tribunal had applied the approach in Cumming v Danson and considered all relevant circumstances as they stood at the date of the hearing. It regarded the arrears as significant, amounting to approximately eight months’ rent, but did not consider the sum comparatively excessive.

It also took account of the fact that the second respondent had been paying enough to meet the monthly rent since August 2025 and had made modest contributions towards the arrears. The tribunal considered that the landlord’s best prospect of recovering those arrears was likely to lie in the respondent remaining in the property and continuing to make payments.

The tribunal had also considered that the second respondent was not entitled to state assistance with housing or other benefits and that eviction would therefore be likely to leave her and her young children homeless. It attached the greatest weight to that consideration.

As regards the landlord, the First-tier Tribunal found that it had not demonstrated financial hardship or another pressing detriment which would make eviction reasonable while the current rent was being paid in full together with a contribution towards the arrears.

Upholding that assessment, Sheriff Martin-Brown said: “The balancing exercise carried out, which ultimately attached more weight to homelessness than the level of arrears, was a delicate exercise.”

Continuing, she stated that “while [she] accepted that the scales might have been tipped in favour of eviction before a differently constituted tribunal, [she] did not consider that no reasonable tribunal would have decided against eviction. On the contrary, it was reasonable to do so where the monthly rent was being made in full, a regular payment was being made towards arrears and no financial hardship had been demonstrated on the part of the appellant.”

The sheriff acknowledged that circumstances arising since the January hearing, including the reduced amount now being paid towards the arrears, might have tipped the balance differently, but stressed that those circumstances had not existed when the First-tier Tribunal made its decision.

She concluded: “I determined that the FTS conducted a proper balancing exercise; explained the factors that it took into account and the weight attached to each of them in detail; and reached a reasonable decision in all the circumstances.”

No error of law having been identified, the appeal was refused and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision upheld.