A landlord has lost an appeal against a decision refusing to evict a tenant who owed £8,554 in rent arrears, after a tribunal ruled that eviction would probably leave her and her young children homeless.

Langah Limited had applied to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber for an eviction order which was refused in January. At the same time, a separate application for payment of rent arrears was granted in the sum of £8,554.

The landlord appealed against the eviction decision, arguing that the tribunal had placed significant weight on the potential homelessness of the tenant and her children and had failed to properly balance this against the seriousness and duration of the breach of her tenancy agreement.

Refused

However, the Upper Tribunal for Scotland refused the appeal and noted that the arrears represented about eight months’ rent at the time of the original hearing. It said the tenant had been paying enough each month to cover the current rent since August 2025 and had also been making modest payments towards the arrears.

The First-tier Tribunal had concluded that the best chance of recovering the £8,554 was for the tenant to remain in the property and continue making payments. It also found that the tenant wasn’t entitled to state assistance for housing or other benefits, meaning eviction would likely result in homelessness for her and her young children.

Exercise

The Upper Tribunal accepted that this was a “delicate” balancing exercise but ruled that the First-tier Tribunal had acted reasonably. Sheriff J Martin-Brown said he had “considerable sympathy” for the landlord's position, noting that the £8,554 arrears would take almost five years to clear at £150 a month.

The tenant told the appeal hearing that circumstances had since become more difficult as the rent had risen from £1,150 to £1,250 a month and she could pay no more than £1,300, meaning only £50 a month was now going towards the arrears.

The sheriff added: “While the scales might now be tipped in favour of eviction in light of the appellant’s failure to pay off her student loans and increase the amount paid towards arrears, those circumstances did not exist at the time of the hearing on 20 January 2026.”

‍