Keep residents in their homes

Make an occupied sale a real option

Opportunity. Put a specific alternative to vacant possession in front of both seller and public partners: keep tenants in place and test a buyer willing to acquire occupied stock. Ask for time to do that while residents still have options.

Evidence. On 6 November, 25 of 25 consenting respondents opposed vacant possession, and 23 said they would remain after a tenanted sale. Lorne Street provides a local example of an occupied portfolio agreement. Dwello’s 9 November reply gives its understanding of one investor’s intentions; ask what other routes have actually been evaluated.

Ask Nevis and the Council. Would Nevis consider an occupied whole-block or phased sale, and will it give a named Council or housing-association contact access to scope, valuation and stock-condition information? What would make that route viable?

Connects to: Council feasibility · Resident evidence · Vacancy condition.

Sources: 6 November aggregate report · Lorne Street parliamentary motion · Dwello reply shared in Slack (via organisers).

Give the Council a specific acquisition proposal to assess

Opportunity. Ask the Council to evaluate acquisition as homelessness prevention and an option for securing affordable housing. The question for Friday is who will own a rapid assessment, with what documents and by when.

Evidence. Fife Council approved plans to buy 26 occupied homes across three communities with Scottish Government and Council funding, including homes where eviction proceedings were underway. Fife highlighted the cost of emergency housing and retaining established communities. Its announcement identifies approval and further negotiations, a useful model for the first decision Edinburgh could take. Lorne Street offers a distinct housing-association example.

Ask the Council, MP and MSP. Name a housing lead. Can the Council or a housing association assess stock, valuation, funding and the cost of displacement? Can the MSP ask the Scottish Government which current funding or policy routes could support it? Request a written next step and date.

Connects to: Occupied sale · Property records · Representative follow-through.

Sources: Fife Council acquisition announcement · Lorne Street parliamentary motion · Earlier case comparison and sources (via organisers).

Show the human impact without waiting for a perfect census

9 November headcount. 45 people filled in the Slack sign-up form, an indication of how many people have come forward because of the sale. The organiser’s provisional preferences tally, including himself, is 28 replies representing 45 people. The form export showed 27 submitted replies before his response. The breakdown below comes from the separately checked 6 November snapshot.

Opportunity. Use the consented survey snapshot as an immediate case for action. Invite more affected households to participate and seek the official unit schedule in parallel.

Evidence from 6 November. 25 consenting respondents. Occupants are counted once per represented home with known size. The answers overlap.

Ask the liaison. Use “39 people in 22 represented homes” as the impact figure with its date and denominator. Ask representatives how they will reach affected homes outside this snapshot. Use the 9 November headcount for reach and the checked 6 November figures when describing support for individual proposals.

Connects to: Acquisition assessment · Unit schedule · Neighbour outreach.

Sources: Aggregate evidence and methods · Survey announcement (via organisers).

Get notices reviewed and ask for time to test alternatives

Opportunity. Run a fast, private review route with Edinburgh’s PRS team and independent advisers. A shared timetable for coordination can coexist with different deadlines and circumstances for individual residents.

Evidence. Dwello’s 27 October advance warning anticipated formal notices on 11 November and proposed 3 February 2027. A resident reported that Council PRS offered to review formal notices and hold an information session. The Scottish Government guide says a notice states the grounds and may include evidence. Ask advisers to assess the individual notice, service and proposed sale evidence rather than relying on a Slack interpretation.

Ask the Council and advisers. Confirm a route for residents to submit documents privately, urgent review capacity and a session date. Ask Nevis and Dwello for written reassurance about time to consider alternatives and to consult independent advisers. Keep every original and note how and when it arrived.

Connects to: Sale documents · Earlier Tribunal evidence · Advice handoff.

Sources: Council PRS discussion (via organisers) · Scottish Government notice guide · Private advance warning (via organisers).

Use the earlier Tribunal case to ask better questions

Opportunity. Compare what was submitted and considered in a prior sale-ground case involving two of the same people. Ask an adviser to identify evidence of sale intention and facts relevant to reasonableness here.

Evidence. FTS/HPC/EV/22/4081 records Stephen McKechnie as applicant and David Gibb as representative. Terms of business for sale were among the documents; the Tribunal considered both the commercial reason and the tenant’s circumstances and granted the order. The representative described a portfolio disposal and move into the new-build market at that time. An earlier 29% rent-rise story discussed by residents is a separate lead.

Ask an adviser. Which documents and circumstances should residents preserve now? What can be requested about the current sale instructions? Which similarities and differences with the earlier case matter?

Connects to: Individual notice review · Ownership overlap · Rent-control question.

Sources: Archived decision (via organisers) · Residents’ comparison (via organisers) · Separate rent-rise discussion (via organisers).

Ask for the unit schedule, buyer and vacancy condition

Opportunity. Make it harder for the discussion to stay at the level of “the investor wants it”. A dated written response can expose where the proposal is fixed and where residents still have room to negotiate.

Evidence. Residents in both blocks report warnings. On 9 November, Dwello wrote that this was a multi-site sale and said it understood the investor would not let the homes after purchase. It did not expect a new tenancy to be available from the purchaser. The agent’s account is the lead to put to the landlord and purchaser.

Ask Nevis and Dwello. Which homes and sites are in scope? Is this an en bloc deal, individual disposals or another structure? Who is the proposed purchaser, what is the intended use, and is vacancy a contractual condition? Which notices have been issued, and what evidence supports the timetable? If details are commercially sensitive, ask what can be provided to the representatives or independent advisers and when.

Connects to: Occupied alternatives · Related-party questions · Planning and use.

Sources: Advance-warning archive (via organisers) · Dwello investor reply (via organisers) · Scope discussion (via organisers).

Ask who makes the decision and who would buy

Opportunity. Establish who speaks for Nevis, Dwello and the purchaser. Ask for transparent written answers about purchaser links and who can change the terms.

Evidence. Companies House records Stephen John McKechnie as a director of Nevis Properties Ltd and Dwello Property Ltd, with reported significant control in both. Kelvin describes Nevis as a subsidiary and has disclosed separate build-to-rent and student-housing activity. This connects the parties for a governance question; a purchaser connection needs its own evidence.

Ask Nevis and the MP’s caseworker. Who can authorise an occupied option? Is the proposed buyer independent of the landlord, agent, directors and associated entities? If a relationship exists, how will the parties disclose it and address competing interests?

Connects to: Sale structure · Finance · Earlier Tribunal case.

Sources: Nevis officers · Nevis control · Dwello officers · Dwello control · Kelvin project announcement · Resident research (via organisers).

Turn the accounts into transaction questions

Opportunity. If finance or speed is presented as a reason occupied options cannot work, ask what specific condition must be met and whether another timetable or buyer could satisfy it.

Evidence. Nevis’s unaudited accounts to 31 March 2026 record £86.09m investment property, £46m longer-term bank loans and overdrafts, £31.60m net assets and £0.278m cash. Additions and disposals support portfolio activity; the disposal value is carrying value removed. The checked charge register showed 70 registrations and 62 outstanding, with separate security for 95 and 120/121. These are starting points for asking about financing, timing and scope. They do not identify a lender instruction.

Ask Nevis. What financial, valuation or security conditions are said to prevent an occupied sale? Does a package sale have a deadline, and could it be phased or extended for an alternative buyer?

Connects to: Occupied sale · Unit schedule · Ownership.

Sources: Nevis filings · Charges · Detailed finance assessment (via organisers) · 7 November evidence note (via organisers).

Keep the rent-control lead available to advisers

Opportunity. Ask for an explanation of the timing and any proposed change in how the properties will be let or used. The statute gives an adviser a precise question rather than a motive to assume.

Evidence. The 2025 Act sets a framework for rent-control areas; official guidance describes the first-tenancy exception after a qualifying vacant-possession purchase. Residents raised this in Slack. Dwello’s stated understanding that the investor does not intend to let should be read alongside that lead. Whether any future restriction, exemption or designation could apply here is for advisers to check against the actual transaction.

Ask the adviser and representatives. What current or future rules could apply to this buyer and use? Ask the buyer whether it intends to let, resell or redevelop and whether any regulatory treatment is part of its reasoning.

Connects to: Purchaser and use · Earlier letting evidence · Ownership.

Sources: Government rent-control framework · 2025 Act, section 23 · Slack discussion (via organisers).

Use planning and building records to test the alternatives

Opportunity. Give a potential public or housing-association buyer a head start on due diligence. Ask for title, planning obligations, original funding and building records together so each can be assessed on its own terms.

Evidence. Development permission 12/03574/FUL sits under an earlier Albion Road description. The 2013 report describes market housing on this plot and affordable housing elsewhere in the masterplan. A planning report leaves the original financing and executed obligations as separate research questions. The 120 property history shows a closed cycle-parking case. Council response 64177 points to records on acoustic and fire separation; it is an information response and a route to the documents.

Ask the Council. Can housing, planning and building standards identify the relevant title burdens, legal agreement, funding records and stock-condition documents? Could any of them affect acquisition, future use or funding eligibility?

Connects to: Acquisition appraisal · Exact property and use.

Sources: Planning research and downloads (via organisers) · 120 property history · Disclosure 64177.

Preserve the letting and future-use evidence

Opportunity. Build a unit-specific trail that can corroborate or challenge what is said about future use. Look for exact listing IDs, dated photos, addresses and planning or licensing decisions.

Evidence. The four archived Airbnb datasets held 25,181 rows before deduplication; the radius and text screen produced 294 candidates. The priority review resolved several close matches to other addresses. The 2023 listing report and key-safe observations remain leads that an exact source could strengthen. A dissolved accommodation-sector company’s registered office at 120 is an address clue. The removed Rightmove advert 89439147 showed a sixth-floor two-bedroom LRP flat advertised at £1,595 pcm. Lee Hardy authored the 25% rental-income claim on LinkedIn and David Gibb reposted it. The advert and post show marketing activity and a stated claim, while unit identity, rent achieved and buyer use need distinct evidence.

Next step. The organiser can use AI to compare dated listings, screenshots and licence IDs. Residents can pass on original evidence they have seen. Ask the Council whether a proposed change of use is recorded and how to track new applications.

Connects to: Planning records · Purchaser’s intended use · Rent-control lead.

Sources: Lettings research and exclusions (via organisers) · Photo comparison (via organisers) · Edinburgh short-let register · LinkedIn and Rightmove discussion (via organisers).

Keep restricted research available for a focused source check

Opportunity. Give a trusted researcher or adviser the existing work and the exact missing link to test, so it is neither lost nor circulated as an allegation.

Evidence. The private lead file records the official director-disqualification source, the clarification that it was an existing disqualification record rather than a new incorporation, and a bounded Companies House appointment comparison. The specific address observations and resident testimony are preserved there. The comparison found no shared appointment. A transaction link would need separate evidence.

Ask a named researcher, if useful. What property-specific or transaction-specific evidence would connect this lead to the present sale? Record a decisive corroborating source or an exclusion before putting personal details in a broader brief.

Connects to: Buyer independence · Property-specific leads.

Sources: Restricted lead and original links — organiser access (via organisers) · Earlier competing explanations (via organisers).

Turn representative engagement into dated commitments

Opportunity. Use Friday’s confirmed meeting to align the MP, MSP, Council and landlord around written deliverables. The existing email thread gives the offices somewhere to reply. Agree which residents can coordinate it and which matters need wider resident approval.

Evidence. The 6 November debrief reports MP/MSP interest in coordination. On 9 November, the MP caseworker confirmed the meeting and listed the invited parties. A Slack reply identifies the existing resident liaison thread. These are working routes; ask each organisation to confirm attendance and what it can do.

Ask the meeting chair. Confirm three deliverables: the affected-unit and sale information from Nevis/Dwello, a Council lead for testing occupied options, and a notice-review route for residents. Record the owner and date for each, plus the next meeting or written update.

Connects to: Three meeting asks · Notice support · Council appraisal.

Sources: Caseworker confirmation (via organisers) · 6 November debrief (via organisers) · Existing liaison thread (via organisers).

Make it easy for neighbours to reach the right support

Opportunity. Build an advice handoff that handles different needs: quick review of individual notices, longer-term legal support and collective organising.

Evidence. Edinburgh PRS offered to review notices and discuss an information session. Residents have Shelter correspondence and offered a Living Rent introduction; residents discussed Citizens Advice, and a CHAI enquiry was sent on 27 October. Use the existing threads to check who has received a reply and what can be coordinated.

Next step. The organiser can use AI to check public advice routes, organise replies and draft a short guide. Residents can decide whether to seek advice and what they are comfortable giving an adviser.

Connects to: Protect time · Group roles · Key contacts — private organiser copy (via organisers).

Sources: Council offer (via organisers) · Living Rent handoff (via organisers) · Citizens Advice discussion (via organisers).

Bring more neighbours into the work

Opportunity. The organiser takes the research, records, invitations, briefing, coordination and recap with AI support. Neighbours can attend, ask agreed questions, share first-hand experiences with permission and reach residents in person. A short form can fill gaps in attendance or outreach.

Evidence. Residents already organised leaflets, a survey, Slack and a private Google Group. All 44 sign-ups had pending Google Group invitations at the 9 November check. There is a Tool Library contact lead and an earlier press introduction discussion.

Ask the group. Who can attend, speak, reach a neighbour or contribute a question? The group decides who speaks for it, what to ask for and whether to involve the press. The organiser can prepare the Tool Library follow-up for the organisers.

Connects to: Resident evidence · Liaison · Ready-to-post volunteer draft (via organisers).

Sources: Leaflet coordination (via organisers) · Google Group verification (via organisers) · Tool Library lead (via organisers) · Press discussion (via organisers).