Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Law on farmland rentals 'seriously flawed'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 July 2009
THE relationship between landlords and tenants can at times be fractious, especially over the issue of rents. Last month The Scotsman quoted Angus McCall, the chairman of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, expressing his concerns at the attitude of some agents.
He said: "I have been appalled at the number of instances where tenants have been contacted by factors at the last minute to discuss rent details. This ploy, designed to maximise pressure on the tenant, does not give enough time to seek advice or pre
pare a case."

However, McCall made it clear that his comments related to a minority of landlords, frequently represented by professional agents whose fees would subsequently be based on how much they could force up rents.

Yesterday a range of landowning interests made their case and argued that there is no vast divide with tenants, but suggested that the current legislation, based on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 is seriously flawed.

David Johnstone, the vice-chairman of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association (SRPBA), said: "We are all agreed on the need for new entrants into agriculture. For this to happen, no single mechanism is going to accomplish this on its own and we have been working constructively within the Tenant Farming Forum to identify the most effective way forward."

The Act of 2003 created two new forms of tenancy, one with a minimum term of 15 years and another with a maximum duration of five years. Very few farms have been subsequently let under this legislation: it is widely viewed as being too restrictive.

Johnstone said: "Surveys into the let sector have shown that the greatest potential for new lettings to be made available comes from the owner occupier sector. These are people who no longer wish to farm, but have no desire to sell. They have expressed concerns about the present options available to them.

"What is required to encourage them to let is greater flexibility for the parties to decide what suits them. But importantly this must include safeguards for tenants, for example, compensation for improvements. This has worked in England and there is no reason why it should not work in Scotland."

The Scottish Government has pledged to provide funds for new entrants of as much as £1 million each year, but little has happened over the past two years. The revamped Scottish Rural Development Programme may be the best avenue, but there are a host of problems for those wishing to take the first step on the farming ladder.

Johnstone said: "If new entrants are to succeed they need to be able to compete with existing farmers on an equal financial footing. This requires them to have access to many factors, for example, a single farm payment entitlement from a national reserve or loans."

The Scottish Land Court in Edinburgh remains the ultimate arbiter in disputes, but recourse to law can be costly and acrimonious. Sandy Lewis, deputy chairman of the Scottish Estates Business Group, has long urged a more rational approach.

He said: "It is all too easy to characterise this debate as a them and us situation between landlords and tenants. The overwhelming majority of tenants and landlords have a perfectly good working relationship.

"Issues such as rent reviews have to be addressed. The fact that most rent reviews are agreed between the parties suggests they are dealt with amicably. It is easy for some to say that landowners and, by implication, large estates, should free up more land to let, but this fails to get to the heart of the matter."





The full article contains 602 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 July 2009 8:08 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Dan Buglass
 
1

Organic peasant,

N E Scotland 03/07/2009 08:30:01
Amused by the spin the SRPBA puts on things. In private they regard tenants as scum to be exploited. We were not allowed to pick up fallen branches for firewood they belonged to the landlord. We must have the right to buy, it is essential for real change. New entrants need help with education, student loans destroy any hope of success. SFP needs to change to an active farmer only system and the SRDP is still a joke.
2

bumpkin,

03/07/2009 09:54:35
the 2003 act is fit for purpose, with one exception, a tenant should be able to buy out the landlord at any time, not when the laird finally runs out of cash.
the lairds have no valid reason not to let farms under the 2003 provisions,but they just say"its my ball and you are not playing with it".
Johnstone is fibbing when he says that the most potenrtal for new lets is from owner occupiers. these people require no legislation , as they are generally honest and trustworthy, and are able to do a deal man to man on the shake of a hand. Sadly landlords and factors behave differently.
I note from todays paper that guiness enjoy a 9000 year lease in dublin. And what a success they are making of it.
Businesses cannot grow and flourish on the quicksand of a short lease.
3

Wee Shooie,

04/07/2009 10:54:55
There are many rogue landlords and their lachies (the puffed up factors) who in public wish the best for their farm tenants , but in the privacy of their estates they try and wreak unbridled power . If it was not for good legislation to protect farm tenants there would be less family farm tenancies and neighbouring owner/occupiers (who themselves were probably tenants , but had the opportunity to buy their farm ) would be paying big rents to farm even more acres . Is it not time for tenants to be allowed to buy their farm so that they are not continually threatened and harrassed by their landlord .? They would then be in control of their livelihood and future.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.