The decision of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland (the UTS) in McAnally v Boyle [2025] UT 53 is a significant addition to Scottish housing law, addressing when a notice to leave (NTL) is invalid, and when errors can be excused under section 73 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”).
This blog explores the judgment, the legal arguments, the UTS’s reasoning, and why the decision matters for both landlords and tenants within Scotland’s Private Residential Tenancy (PRT) sector.
The Statutory Framework
Under Section 50 of the 2016 Act, a PRT cannot be terminated unilaterally by a landlord. Instead, the landlord must serve a valid NTL, and the tenant must subsequently vacate the property. This can happen either voluntarily or, if the tenant remains in occupation, by the landlord applying to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (FTS) for an eviction order.
The NTL is in a prescribed form[1]. Within this document, Part 3 allows the landlord to provide details and supporting evidence for the grounds of eviction relied upon.
The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland’s Decision
The case before the First-tier Tribunal (FTS) concerned an action for eviction sought on the basis of the landlord’s intention to sell the property (Ground 1). The NTL served on the tenant was in the prescribed form, but, instead of completing Part 3, the landlord had written “this section is not applicable.” The tenant argued that this omission was not a mere clerical error but a fundamental flaw. Without a properly completed Part 3, she argued, the NTL could not be valid.
The FTS disagreed, holding that the error did not materially affect the effect of the notice. The FTS pointed to section 73 of the 2016 Act, which states that an error in the prescribed NTL document does not make the document invalid unless the error “materially affects the effect of the document”. Since the landlord’s intention to sell was clear from Part 2 of the NTL (which provides boxes to be ticked with the grounds for eviction applicable), the FTS considered the tenant had been sufficiently informed. Further, the FTS stated that part 3 of the NTL is “permissive, not compulsory” and that completion of the section is largely dependent on the context of the case. On that basis, the FTS proceeded to grant an eviction order, which the tenant subsequently appealed.
The key questions then for the UTS were what is the effect of an NTL? and did the FTS err in law in deciding that the NTL was a valid notice under section 50 of the 2016 Act?
Decision
In dismissing the appeal, Sheriff Cruickshank held that the “effect” of an NTL is synonymous with its “purpose.” That purpose, in his view, is to inform the tenant of three essential matters: the ground(s) of eviction, the length of the statutory notice period, and the earliest date upon which the landlord may apply for an eviction order. Provided these elements are clearly communicated, other mistakes or omissions may fall within the scope of section 73’s leniency.
Interestingly, Sheriff Cruickshank disagreed with the FTS’s opinion that Part 3 is optional. Instead, he acknowledged that landlords should complete it and that, in certain contexts – rent arrears, for example – the details required there may be more critical to fairness. However, in a case such as this, where the ground was the landlord’s intention to sell, very little more would have been needed. In his view, a simple statement that estate agents had been instructed would have sufficed. The failure to include this at the time of service did not materially disadvantage the appellant, nor did it alter the primary purpose of the NTL. Ultimately, the appeal was refused, and the NTL was upheld as valid.
Comment
What emerges from McAnally v Boyle is a careful balancing exercise. On the one hand, the statutory framework reflects a deliberate choice to protect tenants from sudden or arbitrary eviction. Prescribed forms and completion requirements are designed to give tenants this clarity and certainty. On the other hand, section 73 embodies a pragmatic recognition that error is inevitable and that minor errors should not automatically nullify otherwise valid documents. The Tribunal’s task is to distinguish between errors that materially prejudice tenants and those that merely reflect imperfections in form.
So, what does the decision mean? For landlords, it provides reassurance that not every mistake will result in an eviction application being denied. Where the intention is clear and the statutory notice periods are observed, minor drafting errors may be excused. For tenants, however, the judgment serves as a reminder that technical arguments about the form will not always prevail unless the error has caused genuine prejudice to the tenants’ rights under the 2016 Act.
Takeaway
McAnally v Boyle affirms the UTS’s “common sense” approach to statutory compliance. NTLs remain crucial documents; they are, as Sheriff Cruickshank observed, the “foundation” of the eviction process. However, perfection is not demanded. What matters is whether the tenant has been reasonably informed of why they are being asked to leave, when they must do so, and when the landlord can seek to enforce that requirement. Errors that do not disturb these fundamentals may be forgiven.
For more information or advice, please contact our team.
[1] Set out in schedule 5 of the PRT (Prescribed Notices and Forms) (Scotland) Regulations SSI 2017/297
