Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Rent review system agreed between tenant farmers and landlords

Survey responses must be submitted by October 20
Survey responses must be submitted by October 20

Three of the leading membership organisations in the country have joined forces to launch an initiative aimed at applying a common sense test to farm rent reviews.

The move, which will involve self-regulation overseen by a review panel is,in the first instance at least, a short-term one and is a reaction to some recent controversy, most notably over the well-publicised 78% rent increase recently set by the Land Court for Roxburgh Mains near Kelso.

The Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group (AHLRG) set up and chaired by farm minister Richard Lochhead may come up with answers to address the flaws in the legislation enshrined in 2003 but even with a fair wind behind it the final report will not be ready until the end of this year. Converting recommendations into legislation could then take many months if not years.

The initiative announced today aims to provide a stop gap and has been created following intense negotiations between NFU Scotland, Scottish Land and Estates (SLE) and the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association (STFA).

The plan is that a panel consisting of one officebearer or recent officebearer from each of the three organisations will sit as a panel and be ready and waiting to assess the way in which a rent review process has been conducted.

It won’t quite be a case of knocking heads together but the panel will in the first instance examine the rent review process and make sure that guidelines have been adhered to.

There is no shortage of guidelines with the cross-industry Tenant Farming Forum (TFF) and the Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association (SAAVA) having already published very full guides to best practice.

If these are adhered to the majority of rents should be agreed, as most are now, well before the new panel becomes involved.

If however there is a referral, the panel members will apply a “reasonableness check.” The underlying principle is that in the absence of exceptional factors the rent should be “broadly aligned” to inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) since the last recorded rent settlement.

In a nod to the Roxburgh Mains case where the rent had not been reviewed since 1999 the intention is that the inflation based increase would not exceed 30% in the first instance but any further increase would be phased in over the next three years.

The services of the panel will only apply to 1991 Act secure tenancies and any rent reviews already with the Land Court or cisted awaiting attention will not be eligible.

Of course there is the possibility that either the landlord or tenant will refuse to listen to the three wise men or women of the panel.

In that case the Land Court is the next and last resort and the law as expressed in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 will be applied. That of course can involve a frightening degree of expense depending on the level of legal involvement. The proposed review panel will have a minimal application fee, probably around £250.

Summing up the intentions NFUS president Nigel Miller said: “This form of self-regulation gains power not from law but from the three key organisations working together and members standing with them. That consensus can be a positive force now and perhaps in the longer term.”

This hint that the panel could be part of a longer term solution could be significant.

Andrew Thin, who has chaired the tripartite negotiations and is a member of the AHLRG agreed that this could be helpful.

In any event it could be a year or more before any new legislation was in place.

“I see the review panel as being a very low cost approach. It will not involve legal representations and should not be seen as being some sort of shadow Land Court,” he said.

“The idea is that a complainer will make a written submission which will be considered and then the other party will be required to respond, again in writing.”