Thought leadership
Revenue Scotland's Guidance Is Not the Law: What Recent Tribunal Decisions Mean for Property Transactions
16 March 2026
This website will offer limited functionality in this browser. We only support the recent versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge.
In a significant decision, the Upper Tribunal has confirmed that a heritable creditor with an entitlement to possession, but which wasn’t in possession, was not responsible for the landlord’s statutory repairing obligations. In doing so, the Upper Tribunal overturned the decision of First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) at first instance and clarified an important principle of law and practice concerning enforcement of security over Scottish real estate.
The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) (the “FTT”) is a specialist tribunal with jurisdiction to deal with issues in private sector housing (including determinations of rent or repair, and issues arising between homeowners and factors). The Upper Tribunal is the appellate tribunal.
The full facts of the appeal can be found here : Decision, but in summary:
The Upper Tribunal was then asked to consider three propositions:
i. A heritable creditor with an unenforced decree for possession is a heritable creditor “in possession”.
ii. A heritable creditor who seeks to sell a property under the calling up process has assumed the status of a landlord.
iii. A heritable creditor who holds an unenforced decree for possession for the Sheriff is a landlord for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, and specifically the repairing obligation.
It determined that a distinction exists within the relevant authority between a “heritable creditor” and a “heritable creditor in possession” and that in this case the heritable creditor was just that as, on the facts, it was not in possession of the property. Instead the owner remained the landlord, and the party obliged to comply with the statutory repairing obligations.
This decision is a useful reminder of the nuance that exists in this very technical, statutorily outlined area of law and practice, and the importance of maintaining clarity throughout each step of the process as to the particular role each party holds.
For advice on any aspect of the decision, enforcement of standard securities or the rights of heritable creditors generally, please contact Amy McVey, Christopher Bartlett or your usual Burges Salmon contact.
This decision is a useful reminder of the nuance that exists in this very technical area of law and practice
Want more Burges Salmon content? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for content and news you can trust.
Update your preferred sourcesBe sure to follow us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with all the latest from Burges Salmon.
Follow us