Nov 27 2013
SALVESEN-RIDDELL LEGAL FIX MUST NOT CREATE MORE CASUALTIES
News Release
Scottish Tenant Farmers Association
www.stfascotland.org.uk
25th November 2013
SALVESEN-RIDDELL LEGAL FIX MUST NOT CREATE MORE CASUALTIES
The Salvesen Riddell debacle moved into a new phase last week following the Scottish Government’s announcement on how it intends to remedy S72 of the 2003 Act which sought to give additional protection to tenants in Limited Partnerships. In April of this year, the UK Supreme Court, in ruling on the Salvesen Riddell case, decided that this provision contravened ECHR and was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The court’s judgement gave the Scottish Government 12 months to make good the defect and ensure the relevant section of the Act is compliant with ECHR. The Government now proposes to change the legislation so that landlords who served notices to quit on limited partnership tenants in 2002-3 are now able to recover vacant possession of these farms.
Commenting on the government’s proposals STFA Chairman Christopher Nicholson said: “This long running saga has haunted the tenanted sector for the last decade. It has turned out that, in trying to prevent limited partnership tenants from losing their farms, the Scottish Government of the day created a piece of legislation that has achieved the opposite. Tenants in limited partnership tenancies are now in a more vulnerable position than ever.
“This legal ‘fix’ will remedy the deficiency in the legislation but it can only be bad news for those affected, some of whom may now face the prospect of eviction from their farms despite having acted within the law and in good faith to protect their businesses and their livelihoods. There are half a dozen or so tenants embroiled in long-running expensive and stressful legal battles in the courts attempting to save their tenancies and some of those who have been granted full security of tenure who now face losing their farms.
“STFA believes that tenants who are at the moment in possession of secure tenancies must be allowed to continue farming, particularly if they have invested in their businesses, anticipating continuing security of tenure. At least two of these tenants have sons who have returned home to carry on the farming businesses and these young farmers now face a bleak future. If evictions follow the government’s actions these tenants must receive adequate compensation to allow them to rebuild their lives and farming careers.
“Similarly the tenants who have been undergoing legal battles to retain their farms must be compensated not only for the legal expenses they will have incurred but also for the time and stress tenants and their families have suffered, and for the loss of their expected livelihoods. Furthermore, these tenants must be allowed sufficient time to rearrange their lives. Many of them find it ironic that they now face losing their homes and businesses as a result of ECHR legislation designed to protect basic human rights.
“STFA will be lobbying government for a fair deal and a future for the victims of a previous government’s mistakes. Politicians must not shirk their responsibilities and ensure there are no more casualties of this political mess.”
Notes for editors:
The order identifies 3 distinct groups of tenants and landlords for which solutions are required to bring them into an ECHR compliant position.
The groups are:
1. Those where the landlord served on the tenant a dissolution notice under section 72(3) for a date in the future. The tenant has the option, within 28 days, of the purported termination, to serve a notice claiming the tenancy in their own right under section 72(6). The date at which the tenant can serve the claim notice is still to arrive (group 1).
2. Those where the tenant is in receipt of a full 1991 tenancy as a result of the landlord either electing not to apply for Land Court for an order under section 72(8) or withdrawing from the Land Court process (group 2).
3. Those where the tenant’s claim to a full tenancy was challenged by the landlord under section 72(7) and the cases were sisted pending the outcome of the above Case (group 3).
The Order proposes that:
1. For group 1 the order provides for the section 73 process. (Continuation of the tenancy for up to 3 years.
2. For group 2 the order provides that the landlord has an option (though not an obligation) of converting these tenancies into the section 73 process. The opportunity for conversion is provided during a 12 month period which starts on the 28 Nov 2014. The delay for the start of the conversion period allows for a “cooling off” period during which the Scottish Government is offering to assist with mediation if required.
3. For group 3 the order provides that if the case is removed from the Land Court, it is processed through section 73. If it remains at the Court the order provides more discretion to take account of the circumstances and for the Court to make a decision as to when it would be reasonable for landlords to recover vacant possession.
For further information contact:
Christopher Nicholson: 01988500423 or 07730940193