Selling a leasehold flat that can’t be rented out? This guide explains how no-letting clauses affect buyer demand, property value and mortgage availability, and outlines your realistic selling options in the UK, helping you avoid delays, failed sales and unnecessary price reductions.
Call our team 020 7183 5114
Selling a leasehold flat in the UK can be more complicated than selling a freehold property, largely because leasehold flats are governed by a legal document known as the lease. The lease sets out what the flat can and cannot be used for, and it often contains a number of restrictions that do not apply to freehold homes. One of the most common – and frequently misunderstood – of these is a restriction on subletting.
For some sellers, a no-subletting clause is expected, particularly if the flat is in an older block, an ex-local authority building, or a development designed for owner-occupiers. For others, it comes as a genuine shock. We often speak to flat owners who assumed they could rent the property out if needed, only to discover at the point of sale that the lease does not allow it.
This restriction can have a real impact on how easy the flat is to sell, who is able (or willing) to buy it, and the price that can realistically be achieved. It can also lead to delays, failed sales, or last-minute renegotiations if it is not understood and addressed early.
This article explains what a “no subletting” clause really means in practice, why these restrictions exist in the first place, how they affect the selling process, and what realistic options are available to sellers faced with this issue.
Selling a Flat That Prohibits Subletting (Renting)
A step-by-step guide for owners of leasehold flats
Leasehold flats typically have more restrictions than freehold properties because the lease acts as a detailed rulebook for the building. These restrictions are written into the lease and govern how the flat can be used, altered, and occupied, often covering matters such as noise, pets, alterations, business use, and who is allowed to live in the property.
One of the most significant of these restrictions can be a ban or limitation on subletting the flat. This directly affects whether the property can be rented out and, by extension, who might be interested in buying it.
The term subletting is often confusing for leaseholders, particularly those without a legal background. In leasehold legal language:
The leaseholder is the tenant of the freeholder (also known as the landlord)
Any letting by the leaseholder to another occupier is therefore classed as a “sub-letting”
This distinction is important. Some leaseholders mistakenly assume that a “no subletting” clause means their tenant would not be allowed to rent the flat on again to someone else. In reality, the restriction usually applies much earlier in the chain: it means the leaseholder themselves is not permitted to rent the flat out at all, regardless of whether it would be a long-term tenancy or a short-term arrangement.
Because of this misunderstanding, many owners only become aware of the true meaning of the clause when they come to sell and a buyer’s solicitor raises it as a formal legal issue.
A “no subletting” restriction can be a genuine surprise to sellers, particularly those who have owned their flat for a long time or purchased it during periods when conveyancing checks were less detailed than they are today.
We regularly hear from flat owners who:
Have rented their flat out for years, or even decades, without any objections
Have never had any issues or correspondence from the freeholder or managing agent
Were completely unaware that the lease actually prohibited subletting
In many cases, the restriction was either not enforced in practice or was simply missed when the seller originally bought the flat. Historically, some conveyancing transactions were far less forensic than they are now, and certain lease clauses did not receive the same level of scrutiny.
The position today is very different. Solicitors are far more cautious, largely due to the risk of professional negligence claims. As a result, even if a no-subletting clause was overlooked or ignored in the past, it is now very likely to be identified, highlighted, and treated as a material issue during a modern conveyancing process.
In short, what went unnoticed or unchallenged 20 years ago will almost certainly be picked up, questioned, and reported to the buyer today.
A no-subletting clause is rarely a mistake or an oversight. In most cases, it reflects the original purpose, design, and management philosophy of the building, rather than any inherent defect with the flat itself. When the lease was first drafted, the freeholder or developer would usually have had a clear vision for how the building should be occupied and managed over the long term.
Common reasons for including a no-subletting restriction include:
Maintaining a stable, owner-occupied community, where residents have a long-term interest in the building
Reducing noise, anti-social behaviour, and high tenant turnover, which can be more common in heavily rented blocks
Protecting the building’s management standards, security arrangements, and insurance terms
Ensuring occupiers are identifiable, accountable, and invested in the upkeep of the property
Preventing buy-to-let or short-term letting activity that could fundamentally change the character of the building
In many cases, these clauses were introduced to strike a balance between individual ownership rights and the collective interests of all leaseholders in the block. From a drafting perspective, the intention was usually to preserve a quieter, more predictable residential environment.
As a result, while a no-subletting clause can undoubtedly create challenges when it comes to selling, it is important to understand that the restriction was typically put in place to benefit the building as a whole, rather than to disadvantage future sellers.
Not all subletting restrictions are the same, and the precise wording used in the lease is critical. Two leases may both appear to say “no subletting”, yet in practice they can have very different meanings and consequences. A small difference in phrasing can determine whether subletting is completely banned, allowed with consent, or restricted only in certain circumstances. This is why buyers’ solicitors examine these clauses so closely and why understanding the exact wording is essential when assessing how the restriction will affect a sale.
This is the most restrictive form of no-subletting clause and is often referred to as a blanket ban.
Under an absolute prohibition:
Subletting is completely banned in all circumstances
There is no contractual right to request consent from the freeholder
The freeholder has no discretion to allow subletting, even on a temporary or one-off basis
This means the flat must be occupied by the leaseholder themselves at all times. Even short-term or temporary lettings – for example, letting the flat while working abroad or between moves – would usually be a breach of the lease.
From a selling perspective, this type of restriction has the biggest impact. It immediately rules out buy-to-let investors and makes some owner-occupiers nervous about future flexibility. Buyers may worry about what would happen if their circumstances change and they need to move but cannot sell quickly, as renting the flat out would not be an option. As a result, absolute prohibitions often lead to a smaller pool of buyers, longer marketing periods, and increased pressure on price.
Subletting is allowed with the freeholder’s written consent, often referred to as a qualified prohibition.
Under this type of clause, the leaseholder is not given an automatic right to sublet, but they are entitled to request permission from the freeholder before doing so. The exact level of flexibility depends heavily on the wording used in the lease.
Key points to understand include:
Consent may not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned, depending on how the clause is drafted
The freeholder will usually charge a fee for granting consent and may impose conditions
Conditions often include the use of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST), minimum tenancy lengths, and providing tenant references
This type of restriction is usually acceptable to mortgage lenders, provided the buyer intends to live in the flat initially
In practice, this is the most common and least problematic form of subletting restriction. It allows the freeholder to retain a degree of control over who occupies the building, while still giving leaseholders some flexibility if their circumstances change. From a selling perspective, buyers and lenders are generally far more comfortable with this arrangement than with an absolute ban, although delays can still occur if the consent process is slow or poorly managed.
Examples of partial restrictions include:
No subletting of part of the flat, which usually means lodgers are not permitted
Subletting of the whole flat only, typically under a single tenancy agreement
Restrictions on tenant type (for example, private individuals only) or tenancy length (such as a minimum six or twelve months)
These types of restrictions are very common and are often misunderstood by both sellers and buyers. In practice, they may have little real impact on day-to-day use of the flat, particularly for owner-occupiers or buyers considering long-term letting only.
From a selling perspective, the key issue is clarity. Buyers may initially be concerned when they see the words “restricted subletting” in a lease, but once it is explained that the flat can still be let as a whole on a standard long-term tenancy, many concerns fall away. When presented clearly by the seller and their solicitor, partial restrictions are usually far less problematic than absolute bans and rarely prevent a sale on their own.
Many leases allow long-term letting but specifically ban short-term or holiday-style lettings, such as:
Airbnb and similar short-term letting platforms
Holiday lets
Serviced or corporate accommodation
These restrictions have become increasingly common in recent years, particularly in cities and areas with high tourist demand. They are often introduced to prevent frequent guest turnover, noise complaints, security concerns, and increased wear and tear on communal areas.
From a selling perspective, this type of restriction is usually viewed as reasonable and proportionate. Most owner-occupiers are unconcerned, and mortgage lenders are generally comfortable, provided standard long-term lettings (such as Assured Shorthold Tenancies) are permitted. In many cases, buyers actually see these clauses as a positive, as they help preserve the residential character and stability of the building.
Some leases allow subletting only if certain conditions are met. These are known as conditional subletting restrictions and are designed to give the freeholder control over how, and to whom, the flat is let, rather than banning subletting outright.
Common conditions include:
Use of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST), rather than informal or short-term arrangements
A minimum tenancy length, often six or twelve months, to discourage frequent turnover
Providing tenant references, right-to-rent checks, or registration of the tenancy with the managing agent
In practice, these conditions are intended to protect the building rather than to prevent lettings altogether. They allow the freeholder to ensure that tenants are suitable, identifiable, and bound by the building’s rules.
From a selling perspective, conditional restrictions can still generate additional enquiries and paperwork, but they are usually manageable. Buyers are often reassured once they understand that letting is permitted provided the rules are followed. Delays can arise if managing agents are slow to respond or if fees are unclear, so setting expectations early and providing clear information can help keep the sale on track.
Subletting restrictions are usually found in the lease itself, which is the legal document governing how the flat can be used.
If you do not have a copy of the lease to hand, your solicitor can obtain an official copy from HM Land Registry. This is a standard part of the conveyancing process, but it often only happens once a sale is underway.
The difficulty is that subletting restrictions are not always obvious. In many leases:
The relevant clause may be buried deep within dozens of pages of legal wording
It may consist of only a few lines or even a single sentence
It may not use plain language or obvious headings, making it easy to overlook
Because of this, identifying a no-subletting clause often requires a careful legal review rather than a quick scan of the document. As a result, many sellers remain unaware of the restriction until they try to sell the flat and a buyer’s solicitor highlights it as part of their enquiries. Discovering the issue at this stage can be frustrating, but it is very common.
A blanket ban on subletting immediately rules out certain categories of buyer, most notably:
Buy-to-let investors, for whom the restriction makes the flat unsuitable from the outset
Buyers who want future flexibility, even if they intend to live in the property initially
This significantly narrows the buyer pool and changes the type of demand the property will attract. Instead of appealing to a broad mix of owner-occupiers and investors, the flat becomes suitable only for buyers who are confident they will be able to live in the property long-term without needing to rent it out.
Even owner-occupiers may hesitate if:
They might need to move for work or family reasons in the future
They want a back-up plan to rent the flat out if they cannot sell quickly
Their future exit options feel limited or uncertain
For many buyers, the concern is not their immediate plans, but what happens if circumstances change. A no-subletting ban removes a common safety net and can make buyers more cautious, more price-sensitive, or less willing to proceed at all.
With fewer buyers actively able or willing to proceed:
The flat may take longer to sell, simply because there are fewer suitable purchasers in the market
Buyers who do proceed may negotiate harder, using the restriction as leverage
There may be downward pressure on price, particularly if the seller needs a timely sale
In practice, this often means that sellers need to be more realistic from the outset. Properties with no-subletting restrictions can struggle if they are priced in line with unrestricted flats.
Looking at comparable sales within the same building, or within similar blocks with comparable restrictions, can help set realistic expectations on value and avoid prolonged marketing periods or repeated price reductions.
Mortgage lenders are cautious, but not always hostile, when it comes to flats with subletting restrictions. Much depends on the type of restriction and the buyer’s stated intentions.
In many cases:
Most residential lenders are comfortable lending if the buyer intends to live in the flat as their main residence
The presence of a subletting restriction alone does not automatically make the property unmortgageable
However, some lenders will still raise additional questions, particularly during the valuation or underwriting stage, such as:
Is the restriction absolute, or is subletting permitted with consent?
Could consent to let ever be granted if the buyer’s circumstances change?
Does the restriction materially affect the future marketability of the flat?
Problems tend to arise where the restriction is a blanket ban and the lender believes this could limit resale options or increase risk. In these situations, lenders may impose conditions, reduce the loan-to-value ratio, or in some cases withdraw the mortgage offer altogether.
From a seller’s perspective, this is important because lender concerns often emerge late in the transaction, after an offer has been agreed. If a buyer’s mortgage is declined or withdrawn at this stage, the sale can fall through unexpectedly, causing delay, frustration, and potentially forcing a price reassessment.
The effect on value is often more noticeable in certain markets and situations, particularly where rental demand is strong and flexibility is highly valued by buyers.
This is especially true:
In high rental demand areas, where buyers expect the option to rent the property out in the future
Where neighbouring blocks or comparable flats allow letting, making restricted flats less attractive by comparison
In city centres and London, where a significant proportion of buyers factor rental potential into their decision-making
In these situations, buyers are more likely to compare two otherwise similar flats and favour the one with fewer restrictions, even if they do not intend to rent immediately. As a result, flats with no-subletting clauses can attract lower offers or face more resistance at higher price points.
Pricing competitively from the outset is therefore crucial. Setting an asking price that reflects the restriction can help attract the right buyers early, reduce time on the market, and avoid repeated price reductions or failed negotiations later in the process.
A no-subletting clause must be disclosed as part of the selling process. It is considered a material fact that can influence a buyer’s decision and their ability to obtain a mortgage.
Downplaying, overlooking, or misrepresenting the restriction can have serious consequences. It can:
Cause the sale to collapse once the buyer’s solicitor uncovers the clause
Lead to legal claims after completion if the buyer argues they were misled
Waste months of time and money for all parties involved
In practice, this issue often comes to light late in the transaction, which is when the damage is greatest. Buyers may feel they have been misled, lenders may reassess their position, and trust between the parties can break down.
For this reason, estate agents should be informed of the restriction at the outset, and marketing should be handled carefully. While full transparency may feel uncomfortable for sellers, being upfront from the start helps attract the right buyers, avoids aborted sales, and ultimately leads to a smoother and more reliable transaction.
Previous subletting without issue does not remove the underlying legal risk. Even if the flat has been rented out for many years without complaint, the terms of the lease still apply.
In practice:
The freeholder may simply not have enforced the clause to date, either through oversight or a pragmatic approach
A future freeholder, or a change in managing agent, could decide to take a much stricter stance on enforcement
The leaseholder could still be at risk of being in breach of the lease, regardless of how long the flat has been let previously
This uncertainty can be unsettling for buyers, particularly those who are cautious about future disputes or enforcement action.
Where the lease contains a qualified prohibition, it is worth looking more closely at how the clause has been applied in reality. Useful questions include:
Have other flats in the building been granted consent to sublet?
Has a clear precedent been set for allowing lettings?
Does the wording of the lease require consent to be reasonable, and has that standard been followed in practice?
Evidence that consent has been granted elsewhere in the building can help reassure buyers and their solicitors, but it does not remove the need to comply with the lease terms going forward.
It depends entirely on the type of restriction set out in the lease and how flexible the wording is.
Qualified prohibitions may allow consent to be granted by the freeholder, either on a one-off basis or subject to conditions
Absolute bans are much harder to change, as the lease gives no right to request consent and no discretion to the freeholder
In theory, a no-subletting clause can sometimes be changed by way of a deed of variation. This is a formal legal agreement that amends the terms of the lease. While paying £10,000–£20,000 (or more) to “normalise” a lease might sound like a reasonable solution, in practice it is rarely straightforward.
A deed of variation usually requires the freeholder’s agreement and, in many cases, the consent of other parties with an interest in the building. Other leaseholders may have bought into the block specifically because it was intended to be owner-occupier only. Allowing subletting in one flat can be seen as altering the character of the building and may be strongly opposed.
There are also practical considerations. Introducing tenants – particularly short-term or holiday lets – can raise concerns about noise, anti-social behaviour, security, and accountability of occupiers. For these reasons, freeholders are often reluctant to vary leases, and sellers should be cautious about assuming that a no-subletting clause can simply be bought out or removed.
These restrictions are most common in certain types of flats, usually because of how the building was originally designed, funded, or managed:
If a rental restriction applies, it's typically an absolute prohibition or very tightly worded owner-occupation clause. These leases were drafted following Right to Buy to discourage buy-to-let use.
Impact on selling: investor buyers are excluded and owner‑occupiers may be cautious about long‑term flexibility, often leading to longer sale times and price sensitivity.
If a rental restriction applies, it's usually an absolute prohibition or a qualified prohibition with strict consent requirements. The aim is to prioritise stable residents.
Impact on selling: buyer pool is largely limited to owner‑occupiers; mortgage lenders are usually cautious but not automatically opposed.
If a rental restriction applies, it's frequently an absolute ban or time‑limited prohibitions on subletting, particularly in the early years after purchase.
Impact on selling: restrictions are well known in this sector but still narrow demand and can affect value compared with unrestricted flats.
If a rental restriction applies, it's often a qualified prohibition or partial restriction reflecting pre buy‑to‑let thinking.
Impact on selling: generally manageable if consent is possible, though buyers may still factor in reduced flexibility.
If a rental restriction applies, it's usually a qualified prohibition or partial restriction to manage noise and neighbour relations.
Impact on selling: usually limited impact if clearly explained, but buyers will want reassurance about enforcement and neighbour tolerance.
If a rental restriction applies, it's almost always an absolute prohibition combined with age‑related occupation rules.
Impact on selling: the buyer pool is already restricted, so resale values can be more sensitive to pricing and marketing strategy.
If a rental restriction applies, it's often a qualified prohibition or conditional restriction driven by insurance and risk considerations.
Impact on selling: these flats already face lending challenges, and subletting restrictions can further reduce buyer confidence.
If a rental restriction applies, it's typically an absolute or time‑limited prohibition on subletting, especially before staircasing to 100%.
Impact on selling: buyers are generally familiar with these rules, but flexibility is limited and resale demand can be narrower.
If a rental restriction applies, it's commonly a qualified prohibition with detailed conditions.
Impact on selling: acceptable to many buyers, but delays can occur if consent procedures are slow or costly.
If a rental restriction applies, they increasingly include short‑term letting bans rather than full prohibitions.
Impact on selling: minimal impact on most owner‑occupiers and lenders, and sometimes viewed positively by buyers seeking quieter buildings.
By contrast, no‑subletting clauses are less common in:
Modern private developments, where leases often allow subletting with minimal restriction
Investor‑led schemes, typically drafted to permit buy‑to‑let use
City‑centre blocks designed for rentals, where letting flexibility is expected by buyers and lenders
Yes – but strategy matters. Flats with no‑subletting restrictions can be sold successfully, but they benefit from a more considered and realistic approach than unrestricted properties.
Target owner‑occupiers clearly in marketing – marketing should be honest and focused on buyers who intend to live in the flat. Emphasising factors such as the condition of the property, the community feel of the building, and suitability for long‑term occupation can help attract the right audience and reduce wasted viewings.
Price realistically from the outset – asking prices that ignore the restriction often lead to long marketing periods and repeated reductions. Pricing with the restriction in mind can generate early interest, encourage serious offers, and reduce the risk of failed negotiations later.
Cash buyers – cash buyers are not reliant on mortgage lender approval and are often more comfortable assessing risk themselves. This can reduce delays, avoid lender‑related fall‑throughs, and provide greater certainty of completion.
Auctions – auctions can be an effective route for flats with restrictions, particularly where speed and certainty are priorities. Auction buyers are typically well informed, many are cash purchasers, and the legal position is disclosed upfront, reducing the risk of late surprises.
Lease variation – in limited circumstances, a deed of variation may be explored to amend the lease. However, this is rare, often costly, and far from guaranteed. Sellers should treat this as a potential long‑term option rather than a quick solution and should not assume it will be achievable or commercially viable.
A no-subletting clause does not make a flat unsaleable, but it does change the dynamics of the sale. Understanding the restriction, being transparent, and choosing the right selling strategy are essential to avoiding delays, failed sales, and unnecessary price reductions.
Handled correctly, even a flat with a strict no-subletting clause can still be sold successfully.
Yes. A no-subletting clause does not make a flat unsellable, but it can reduce buyer demand and affect price. The key is understanding the restriction and marketing the flat to the right buyers.
In leasehold terms, the leaseholder is the tenant of the freeholder. A no-subletting clause usually means you, as the leaseholder, cannot rent the flat out, not that your tenant cannot sublet.
It can. The impact is often greater in high-rental areas, city centres, or where similar flats nearby allow letting. Buyers may offer less due to reduced flexibility and exit options.
Yes. It is a material fact and must be disclosed. Failing to do so can cause the sale to collapse or lead to legal claims after completion.
Often yes, especially if the buyer intends to live in the flat. However, some lenders are cautious with absolute bans and may raise concerns about future resale.
Past letting does not override the lease. The restriction still applies, and future enforcement by the freeholder (or a new freeholder) remains a risk that buyers will consider.
No. Some are absolute bans, others allow subletting with consent, and some only restrict short-term or holiday lets. The exact wording of the lease is critical.
Sometimes, but it is difficult. A deed of variation may be possible in limited cases, but it requires freeholder agreement, can be costly, and is far from guaranteed.
Owner-occupiers are the most common buyers. Buy-to-let investors will usually not proceed, and some buyers may be cautious about long-term flexibility.
Options include pricing realistically, targeting owner-occupiers, considering cash buyers, using auction routes, or exploring (carefully) whether a lease variation is possible.
As a chain-free cash buyer, we're not dependent on third parties, who can often cause delays in the transaction.
Quick SaleSelling directly means no middlemen - just a straightforward, hassle-free sale.
Hassle-Free SaleGet started today - request a free & no-obligation sale price estimate for your flat