The Renters’ Rights Act represents a major shift in landlord and tenant law, with significant consequences for leasehold flat owners. This guide explains what leaseholder-landlords need to consider before deciding how, and when to sell.
Call our team 020 7183 5114
Publication date: 4 January 2026
While the Renters’ Rights Act affects all private landlords, those owning leasehold flats face unique challenges - from restrictive leases and managing agent control to rising service charges that cannot easily be recovered through rent.
With the Act coming into force in May 2026, leaseholder‑landlords considering selling their flat will need to plan carefully. The combination of stronger tenant protections, longer notice periods, restrictions on reletting, and the inherent complexities of leasehold ownership means that selling a rental flat is likely to become slower, more regulated, and potentially more costly than under the current system.
The Renters’ Rights Act will be introduced in three phases, reflecting a staged approach to reform of the private rented sector. While later phases introduce additional compliance and property standards, the most significant and immediate changes for landlords - particularly around possession, tenancy structure, and tenant rights - will take effect from 1 May 2026, fundamentally altering how and when landlords can regain control of their properties.
Phase 1 represents the most significant shift in landlord and tenant law in a generation. From this date, the fundamental structure of tenancies changes, removing fixed-term certainty for landlords and replacing it with an open-ended system where possession can only be recovered for specific, legally defined reasons. For landlords considering selling, this phase has the greatest immediate impact on timing, risk, and strategy.
From 1 May 2026:
All existing Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) will automatically convert into rolling periodic tenancies, regardless of whether they were originally granted for six months, twelve months, or longer
Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions will be abolished, removing the ability for landlords to recover possession simply because a fixed term has ended
Landlords will only be able to regain possession using the reformed Section 8 process, relying on clearly defined statutory grounds such as sale of the property, landlord occupation, or serious rent arrears
This applies to all existing tenancies, including those currently within a fixed term. Any remaining fixed term will effectively fall away, meaning landlords can no longer rely on a contractual end date to plan a sale or regain possession. Instead, tenancies will continue indefinitely on a rolling basis, and tenants will have the right to remain in the property unless and until the landlord can successfully rely on a valid legal ground and follow the correct notice and court procedures.
The reasons, or grounds, for gaining possession of a property are divided into mandatory and discretionary grounds. The distinction is crucial, as it determines how much certainty a landlord has when seeking possession.
Mandatory grounds: If the landlord proves the ground applies and follows the correct procedure, the court must grant possession.
Discretionary grounds: Even if the ground is proven, the court has the power to decide whether it is reasonable to grant possession. Proof alone is not enough - the court decides whether eviction is fair in the circumstances.
Mandatory grounds offer landlords the greatest degree of certainty when seeking possession, as the court must grant possession if the legal criteria are met and the correct procedure is followed. However, under the Renters’ Rights Act these grounds are narrowly defined, tightly regulated, and often subject to additional notice periods and restrictions that landlords must understand fully before relying on them - particularly when planning a sale.
A landlord may recover possession if they genuinely intend to occupy the property themselves, or allow a close family member to do so, as their main or principal home.
This ground is designed to allow landlords to recover their property where there is a legitimate personal need to live in it, rather than for investment or short‑term reasons.
Notice required: 4 months
Restriction: Cannot be used within the first 12 months of the tenancy
The landlord must be able to demonstrate a genuine intention to occupy the property. If the property is not subsequently used as claimed, the tenant may be able to challenge the eviction or seek compensation.
For these purposes, a family member includes a spouse, parent, grandparent, sibling, child, or grandchild. More distant relatives, friends, or lodgers do not qualify under this ground.
This is likely to be the most relevant ground for landlords planning to exit the market, but it is also one of the most tightly regulated and risky grounds to rely upon.
Notice required: 4 months
Restriction: Cannot be used within the first 12 months of the tenancy
Reletting ban: The landlord cannot market or offer the property for letting (including short‑term lets such as Airbnb) for 12 months after possession
To rely on Ground 1A, the landlord must genuinely intend to sell the property on the open market. This is not a technical formality - evidence may be required, such as instructions to an estate agent, marketing particulars, or correspondence showing a clear intention to sell. If the tenant disputes the landlord’s intentions, the court may scrutinise the evidence closely.
If the property is re‑let instead of sold, the former tenant may be able to challenge the eviction, and local authorities may take enforcement action. The Act is designed to prevent landlords from using the sale ground as a pretext to remove tenants and then re‑let at a higher rent.
In practice, the restrictions are far‑reaching. A landlord could be prevented from re‑letting for up to 16 months in total - comprising the 4‑month notice period followed by a 12‑month reletting ban after possession is obtained. During this time, the landlord may still be liable for mortgage payments, service charges, ground rent, and insurance, with no rental income to offset these costs.
A breach of the reletting restriction may result in a fine of up to £7,000, as well as potential claims from the former tenant. For leasehold flat owners, where sales can take longer due to lease length, service charges, or freeholder involvement, this makes Ground 1A a particularly high‑risk route to vacant possession.
This ground may be used where substantial redevelopment or major works are required and cannot reasonably be carried out with the tenant remaining in occupation. It is intended for situations where the scale, nature, or disruption of the works makes continued occupation impractical or unsafe.
Notice required: 4 months
For leasehold flats, Ground 6 can be particularly complex and is often closely scrutinised by the court. It may apply where:
Significant works are required to bring the flat up to a lettable or habitable standard, such as major rewiring, replumbing, or structural alterations
Improvements are needed to comply with minimum EPC requirements or future energy efficiency standards, and those works cannot realistically be completed with a tenant living in the property
Extensive damp, mould, or water ingress issues exist which require invasive works, potentially linked to building‑wide problems
The tenant is refusing reasonable access or cooperation in a way that makes it impossible to carry out essential works safely or effectively
For leaseholder‑landlords, this ground carries additional risks. Many redevelopment works will require freeholder or managing agent consent, which can cause delays or impose conditions outside the landlord’s control. The court may also expect evidence such as contractor reports, schedules of works, and proof that the works genuinely cannot be undertaken with the tenant in situ.
Importantly, Ground 6 cannot be used simply to improve the property’s value or as a substitute for selling with vacant possession. The landlord must show that the works are genuinely necessary, and in some cases may be required to contribute towards the tenant’s reasonable moving or disturbance costs. As a result, while Ground 6 can be a useful option in limited circumstances, it is not a straightforward or low‑risk route for most leasehold flat owners.
Ground 8 applies where rent arrears reach a defined statutory threshold and is one of the key grounds relied upon by landlords where tenants have fallen significantly behind on payments.
Threshold: At least three months’ rent arrears
Notice required: 4 months
Ground 8 is intended to deal with serious arrears rather than occasional late payment. However, its effectiveness is limited by the requirement that the arrears must still meet the threshold both at the date the notice is served and at the date of the possession hearing.
If the tenant reduces the arrears below the three‑month threshold before the hearing - even by a small amount - the court will not be obliged to grant possession under Ground 8. In those circumstances, the landlord may need to rely on discretionary grounds such as persistent arrears (Ground 11), which carry far less certainty.
For leasehold flat owners, this creates particular financial pressure. Service charges, ground rent, insurance contributions, and mortgage payments continue to fall due regardless of whether rent is being paid. Delays caused by partial repayments or repeated last‑minute reductions in arrears can significantly extend the period of non‑payment, increasing the risk of cash‑flow problems.
As a result, while Ground 8 remains an important mandatory ground, landlords should be aware that it is not foolproof and requires careful monitoring of arrears levels, accurate record‑keeping, and, in many cases, parallel reliance on discretionary arrears grounds to improve the prospects of success.
Discretionary grounds give landlords a route to seek possession in a wider range of circumstances, but they come with significantly less certainty than mandatory grounds. Even where a landlord can clearly demonstrate that a ground applies, the court must still decide whether it is reasonable to grant possession. For landlords - particularly those with leasehold flats and ongoing fixed costs - this uncertainty can make discretionary grounds a risky and often unpredictable basis for planning a sale.
Ground 9 allows a landlord to seek possession where genuinely suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant. Unlike mandatory grounds, this is a discretionary ground, meaning the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to grant possession in all the circumstances.
The alternative accommodation must be suitable having regard to factors such as:
Location and proximity to the tenant’s place of work, school, or support network
Rent level and affordability compared with the existing tenancy
Size, condition, and layout of the property
The specific needs of the tenant and their household, including disability or medical requirements
Crucially, the accommodation must be available at the time of the possession hearing, not merely proposed or speculative. The court may also require the landlord to cover reasonable removal or disturbance costs, and in some cases to make up any shortfall if the new accommodation is more expensive.
For leasehold flat owners, Ground 9 is rarely used in practice. Sourcing genuinely suitable accommodation can be difficult, costly, and time‑consuming, and there is no guarantee the court will agree that it is appropriate. As a result, while the notice period is shorter than many other grounds, the practical and financial hurdles mean this ground offers limited certainty for landlords seeking to sell.
Ground 10 applies where rent is lawfully due from the tenant and remains unpaid at the date the notice is served and at the date of the court hearing, regardless of the amount. Unlike Ground 8, there is no minimum arrears threshold, meaning even relatively small arrears can be relied upon.However, Ground 10 is a discretionary ground, so proving that arrears exist does not guarantee possession. The court will consider the tenant’s circumstances, the level of arrears, the payment history, and whether it is reasonable to grant possession.
In practice, Ground 10 is often used alongside other arrears grounds, particularly Ground 8 or Ground 11, to strengthen a possession claim. For leasehold flat owners, this ground can be useful where arrears are persistent but fluctuate below the mandatory threshold, although outcomes are uncertain and court delays can still prolong periods of non-payment.
Ground 11 applies where there is a recurring pattern of late, missed, or irregular rent payments, even if the tenant is not in arrears at the time of the hearing. The focus is on behaviour over time rather than the arrears level on a specific date.
This ground is discretionary, meaning the court will assess whether it is reasonable to grant possession, taking into account the tenant’s payment history, any explanations for late payment, and whether the pattern is likely to continue.
In practice, Ground 11 is often relied upon where tenants repeatedly fall into arrears and then clear them just before enforcement action, preventing the landlord from succeeding under the mandatory rent arrears ground. For leasehold flat owners, this pattern can be particularly damaging, as service charges and other fixed costs remain payable regardless of inconsistent rental income.
While Ground 11 can be a useful supporting ground, landlords should be aware that outcomes are uncertain. Detailed rent schedules, bank statements, and clear records of payment history are essential to demonstrate a persistent pattern and improve the prospects of success.
Ground 12 applies where the tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement, other than the obligation to pay rent. Common examples include refusing reasonable access for inspections or repairs, causing damage to the property, or using the flat in a way that breaches the tenancy conditions.
This is a discretionary ground, so the court will consider not only whether a breach has occurred, but whether it is reasonable to grant possession in the circumstances. Factors such as the seriousness of the breach, whether it has been remedied, and the conduct of both parties will be taken into account.
For leasehold flat owners, refusal of access can be particularly problematic. Leaseholders often have obligations to the freeholder or managing agent to allow access for inspections, repairs, or compliance works. A tenant’s failure to cooperate can therefore place the landlord in breach of their own lease, even though the issue is outside their direct control.
While Ground 12 can be useful in cases of persistent or serious breaches, it is rarely sufficient on its own. Detailed evidence, written warnings, and a clear audit trail are essential, and landlords will often rely on this ground alongside others to strengthen a possession claim.
Ground 14 applies where the tenant, a member of their household, or a visitor has engaged in serious antisocial behaviour, such as violence or threats, harassment, criminal activity, or behaviour causing significant nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or others in the locality.
The landlord can apply for possession immediately without giving any notice period. However, this remains a discretionary ground, meaning the court will carefully assess whether it is reasonable to grant possession in the circumstances.
Strong and persuasive evidence is essential. This may include police reports, witness statements, complaints from neighbours, recordings, or correspondence from the local authority or managing agent. For leasehold flat owners, antisocial behaviour can be particularly serious, as it may expose the landlord to enforcement action from the freeholder or managing agent for breach of lease covenants relating to nuisance or quiet enjoyment.
While Ground 14 allows for swift action in urgent cases, courts apply it cautiously. Isolated incidents or minor disputes are unlikely to be sufficient. Landlords should therefore treat this ground as a measure of last resort, reserved for serious and well-documented cases where continued occupation is untenable.
Beyond changes to possession and tenancy structure, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a range of wider reforms that affect how landlords set rents, manage risk, and deal with tenants on an ongoing basis. While these measures apply to all private landlords, they have particular implications for leasehold flat owners, who often have limited ability to control costs and fewer options to respond when expenses rise.
Rent can only be increased once per year using a Section 13 notice. Increases must reflect the open market and cannot be used to offset unexpected costs such as rising service charges or major works bills.
Tenants can challenge increases at the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT), which introduces additional uncertainty for landlords:
The tribunal can only set the rent at the proposed level or lower - it cannot approve a higher figure
Rent increases cannot be backdated, even if there are delays in the tribunal process
While a challenge is ongoing, the landlord must continue charging the existing rent
Rent bidding is banned, meaning landlords and agents must advertise a fixed rent and cannot accept offers above that level. This removes flexibility in high‑demand areas and prevents landlords from testing market appetite.
Landlords cannot require more than one month’s rent in advance, limiting the ability to manage risk where tenants have weaker credit profiles or irregular income.
Tenants have the right to request a pet, and landlords cannot unreasonably refuse. For leasehold flat owners, this can be particularly complex where the lease requires freeholder consent or contains outright restrictions on pets, increasing the risk of conflict between statutory obligations and lease terms.
Landlords will be required to register on a Private Rented Sector (PRS) database, creating a central record of privately rented properties and their owners. Registration will be mandatory and is expected to involve:
Registration of both the landlord and each rented property
Payment of a registration fee, likely to be recurring
Submission and ongoing maintenance of compliance documents, including gas safety certificates, electrical safety reports, EPCs, and potentially proof of deposit protection
The database is intended to improve transparency and enforcement, making it easier for local authorities to identify non-compliant landlords. Failure to register or to keep information up to date may result in financial penalties or restrictions on a landlord’s ability to use possession grounds.
Alongside the database, a Landlords’ Ombudsman scheme will be introduced. This will give tenants a free, independent route to raise complaints about landlord conduct without needing to go to court. Ombudsman decisions may include orders to apologise, take remedial action, or pay compensation.
For leasehold flat owners, this adds an additional layer of oversight and administrative burden. Complaints relating to issues outside the landlord’s direct control - such as managing agent delays, building-wide repairs, or service charge disputes - may still be directed at the landlord, increasing the importance of clear records, prompt communication, and proactive management.
Although further away, this phase will require private rented properties to meet a minimum standard under the Decent Homes Standard, bringing the private rented sector closer into line with social housing requirements. Properties will need to be safe, in a reasonable state of repair, free from serious hazards, and provide adequate facilities for modern living.
Local councils will be given enhanced enforcement powers, allowing them to inspect properties, issue improvement notices, and take action where landlords fail to comply. This may include financial penalties, restrictions on letting, or remedial works being carried out at the landlord’s expense.
For leasehold flat owners, compliance may be more challenging than for freehold landlords. Many elements of the Decent Homes Standard - such as structural repairs, external walls, roofs, communal areas, or building-wide damp issues - are often controlled by the freeholder or managing agent. Despite this, the leaseholder‑landlord may remain responsible to their tenant if standards are not met, even where delays are outside their direct control.
Although implementation is expected between 2035 and 2037, landlords should factor these future obligations into long-term planning, particularly when deciding whether to retain or sell a leasehold rental property.
Under the new system, tenants can end a tenancy with two months’ notice, giving them far greater flexibility and removing the need to wait until the end of a fixed term. This marks a significant shift in the balance of control between landlords and tenants.
While positive for renters, this change may have important consequences for landlords, particularly those with leasehold flats:
Shorter tenancies, as tenants can move more easily in response to changes in employment, relationships, or finances
Increased void periods, with landlords facing more frequent gaps between tenancies
Less predictable rental income, making it harder to budget for fixed outgoings such as service charges, ground rent, insurance, and mortgage payments
Higher turnover costs, including referencing, inventory updates, cleaning, and re‑marketing
For leasehold flat owners, these risks are amplified because many costs are fixed and unavoidable, regardless of whether the property is occupied. A run of short‑term tenants can therefore place sustained pressure on cash flow, particularly where service charges are high or unpredictable.
The Act also makes it illegal for landlords and agents to discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis that they receive benefits or have children. While this aims to improve fairness and access to housing, landlords must ensure their advertising, referencing criteria, and decision‑making processes are compliant, even where lease terms or lender requirements previously imposed restrictions.
For landlords of leasehold flats, selling under the Renters’ Rights Act carries a different risk profile to freehold property. Longer notice periods, restrictions on reletting, and the added complexity of leasehold ownership mean that a failed or delayed sale can have significant financial consequences. Understanding these risks in advance is essential when deciding whether to seek vacant possession or sell with a tenant in place.
This is where the reletting ban under Ground 1A becomes particularly problematic. If a landlord regains possession in order to sell and the sale subsequently falls through, they cannot re‑let the property for 12 months, regardless of the reason for the failed sale.
This restriction applies even where the landlord has acted entirely in good faith and the collapse of the transaction is outside their control - for example due to a buyer withdrawing, a mortgage offer being declined, survey issues, or delays caused by leasehold enquiries. During this period, the landlord may be left with a vacant property generating no income while still being responsible for mortgage payments, service charges, ground rent, insurance, and ongoing maintenance.
For leasehold flat owners, this risk is particularly acute. Leasehold transactions are often slower and more fragile than freehold sales, with greater scope for delay or failure due to issues such as short lease terms, high service charges, unresolved disputes with managing agents, or the need for lease extensions. The inability to re‑let during this period can therefore create significant financial strain and may force landlords to sell at a reduced price or seek alternative funding to cover ongoing liabilities.
Given these restrictions, many landlords are considering selling with tenants in situ rather than seeking vacant possession. This approach avoids triggering the more punitive elements of the Renters’ Rights Act and can offer a more predictable route to sale.
Selling with tenants in place means the tenancy simply transfers to the new owner on completion, with the buyer stepping into the role of landlord on the same terms. Crucially, the existing tenant retains their rights, and no possession proceedings are required.
This approach:
Avoids the need to serve notice or rely on Section 8 grounds
Prevents loss of rental income during a notice period or court proceedings
Removes the risk of the 12‑month reletting ban if the sale falls through
Allows the buyer to receive rental income from day one
Reduces the likelihood of disputes or delays caused by contested possession claims
For leasehold flats in particular, selling with tenants in situ is increasingly seen as the lowest‑risk option. Leasehold properties already face longer sales timelines due to management packs, service charge enquiries, and lease term considerations. Retaining a tenant during this process helps offset ongoing costs such as service charges and ground rent, while also appealing to investors who are comfortable acquiring tenanted stock.
However, this route is not without trade‑offs. The buyer pool is typically smaller, limited mainly to investors rather than owner‑occupiers, and the sale price may reflect this. Nonetheless, for many leaseholder‑landlords, the certainty and cash‑flow stability offered by a tenanted sale may outweigh the potential price premium associated with vacant possession.
In addition to the general tenancy reforms, landlords who own leasehold flats face a distinct set of legal, practical, and financial considerations that do not apply to freehold properties. These issues arise from the interaction between landlord‑tenant law and the obligations imposed by a superior lease, often involving freeholders, managing agents, and mortgage lenders. Understanding these additional layers of risk is essential when deciding whether and how to sell a leasehold rental property under the new regime.
The Act removes the so‑called AST trap, which previously allowed freeholders to use residential eviction procedures against leaseholders where ground rent thresholds were exceeded. Under the old rules, some long residential leases were inadvertently treated as Assured Shorthold Tenancies if the ground rent exceeded £1,000 per year in London or £250 per year elsewhere, exposing leaseholders to possession claims for relatively minor ground rent arrears.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, long leases with a fixed term of more than 21 years are removed from the assured tenancy regime altogether. This means that freeholders and superior landlords can no longer rely on residential tenancy eviction procedures to recover possession for ground rent arrears. Instead, disputes over ground rent will be treated as contractual debt matters rather than housing possession claims.
For leaseholder‑landlords, this is a significant and positive change. It reduces the risk of losing a long lease due to technical breaches or short‑term arrears, and it provides greater security when owning, letting, or selling a leasehold flat. While this reform does not remove the obligation to pay ground rent, it does remove a disproportionate enforcement mechanism that has caused concern for leaseholders for many years.
New mandatory Grounds 2ZA–2ZD address situations where a landlord’s own superior lease or tenancy is coming to an end, and the landlord therefore needs to recover possession in order to return the property to the freeholder or superior landlord.
In principle, these grounds recognise that some leaseholder‑landlords do not own the freehold and may be contractually required to give up possession when their own lease expires or is terminated. However, in practice, these grounds apply only in very limited and specific circumstances.
They are generally restricted to cases involving:
Registered providers of social housing
Supported or specialist accommodation providers
Certain agricultural tenancies
Situations where the landlord is at least 50% owned by a local authority
As a result, most private leaseholder‑landlords will not be able to rely on these grounds at all. If your long lease is approaching expiry, or if you are required to give vacant possession back to a freeholder, you may find that there is no applicable possession ground available under the new regime.
This is an important and often overlooked risk. Leaseholder‑landlords with shorter remaining lease terms should seek legal advice well in advance, as the Renters’ Rights Act significantly reduces flexibility where a superior lease is ending and does not provide a general safety net for private landlords in this position.
Many leasehold agreements contain strict provisions governing whether and how a flat may be sublet. These can range from an outright prohibition on subletting, to requirements that the property must be the leaseholder’s sole or principal residence, or that subletting is permitted only with the freeholder’s prior written consent.
Leaseholder‑landlords should carefully review their lease to understand:
Whether subletting is permitted at all
Whether freeholder or managing agent consent is required before letting
Any conditions attached to consent, such as references, licence fees, or time limits
Whether subletting is restricted to certain types of tenancy or occupier
While the Renters’ Rights Act renders discriminatory clauses - such as restrictions excluding tenants with children or those in receipt of benefits - legally ineffective, other non‑discriminatory lease terms remain fully enforceable. This means a landlord may still be in breach of their lease if they let the property without the required consent or in contravention of permitted use clauses.
For landlords planning to sell, historic breaches of subletting provisions can cause delays or complications during conveyancing, particularly where buyers’ solicitors request evidence of consent. Ensuring compliance well in advance can help reduce the risk of disputes with freeholders and avoid delays when bringing a leasehold flat to market.
Leaseholder‑landlords may need freeholder or managing agent consent before agreeing to a tenant’s request to keep a pet, as many long leases contain restrictions or outright prohibitions on animals within flats. Under the Renters’ Rights Act, tenants have a statutory right to request a pet and landlords must not unreasonably refuse.
Recognising the additional layer of approval required for leasehold properties, the Act allows landlords extra time to respond to a pet request where consent from a superior landlord is needed. In practice, this creates a cascading approval process: the tenant makes a request to the landlord, the landlord must then seek consent from the freeholder, and only once a response is received can the landlord formally reply to the tenant.
Difficulties can arise where the freeholder unreasonably withholds consent, imposes conditions, or where the lease prohibits pets altogether. In such cases, the leaseholder‑landlord may find themselves caught between their statutory duty to consider the tenant’s request fairly and their contractual obligation not to breach the lease. Where this conflict arises, specialist legal advice may be required to manage the risk of enforcement action by the freeholder or complaints from the tenant.
Leaseholder‑landlords remain legally liable to their tenants for repairs and maintenance, even where the underlying issue stems from building‑wide problems controlled by the freeholder or managing agent - including damp and mould issues that fall within the scope of Awaab’s Law.
This creates a particular challenge for leasehold flat owners. While responsibility for roofs, external walls, structural elements, and communal areas often sits with the freeholder, the tenant’s legal relationship is with the landlord. If repairs are delayed because a freeholder or managing agent is slow to act, the landlord may still be exposed to enforcement action, complaints, or compensation claims from the tenant.
Under Awaab’s Law, landlords are required to investigate and remedy serious damp and mould within strict timeframes. Where the cause is structural or communal - such as roof leaks, defective cladding, or inadequate ventilation in shared areas - leaseholder‑landlords may find themselves dependent on third parties over whom they have limited control, increasing both compliance risk and potential liability.
Leasehold flats often take longer to sell than freehold properties, largely due to factors that are outside the landlord’s direct control. These commonly include:
Short lease terms, which may deter buyers or require a lease extension before a sale can proceed
High or escalating service charges and ground rent, which can reduce affordability and lender appetite
Lease extension requirements, adding cost, delay, and complexity to the transaction
Freeholder or managing agent involvement, including the need for consent to sell and the provision of management information packs
In addition, leasehold conveyancing is often more document‑heavy and vulnerable to delay. Buyers’ solicitors typically raise detailed enquiries about service charge history, planned major works, disputes with the freeholder, and compliance with lease terms. Any unresolved issues can slow progress or cause buyers to withdraw altogether.
When combined with the 12‑month reletting ban under Ground 1A, these extended timescales significantly increase financial risk. A leaseholder‑landlord who has regained possession to sell may face a prolonged period with no rental income while continuing to meet fixed costs such as mortgage payments, service charges, ground rent, and insurance. This heightened exposure is a key reason why many leasehold landlords are reconsidering whether seeking vacant possession is viable under the new regime.
Buy‑to‑let mortgage conditions must be reviewed carefully to ensure continued compliance, particularly in light of the structural changes introduced by the Renters’ Rights Act.
Most buy‑to‑let mortgages are granted on the basis of specific assumptions about how the property will be let, including the type of tenancy, rental income levels, and compliance with lender conditions. The move to open‑ended periodic tenancies, restrictions on regaining possession, and limits on rent increases may affect affordability calculations and lender risk assessments.
Leaseholder‑landlords should check:
Whether lender consent to let remains valid under a periodic tenancy model
Any restrictions on selling with tenants in situ
Whether prolonged void periods following possession could place the mortgage in breach of affordability or payment terms
Requirements to notify the lender if possession proceedings are issued or if the property becomes vacant for an extended period
Failure to comply with mortgage conditions can have serious consequences, including higher interest rates, withdrawal of consent to let, or enforcement action. As a result, landlords planning to sell - particularly those considering serving notice under Ground 1A - should review their mortgage terms early and seek advice from their lender or a mortgage broker where necessary.
Given the scale of change introduced by the Renters’ Rights Act, leaseholder‑landlords should take a proactive and strategic approach well before deciding to sell. Careful preparation can reduce risk, avoid costly delays, and help landlords choose the most appropriate exit route - whether that involves selling with tenants in place or planning a compliant route to vacant possession.
Review your lease thoroughly: Identify any restrictions on subletting, pets, alterations, sale requirements, or obligations to obtain freeholder or managing agent consent. Pay particular attention to clauses relating to nuisance, access for repairs, and compliance with building regulations, as breaches can create problems both during a tenancy and when selling.
Check remaining lease length: If the lease term is approaching or below 80 years, consider whether a lease extension should be pursued sooner rather than later. Short leases can significantly reduce buyer interest, delay sales, and increase the risk of a prolonged void period if you have already sought possession.
Build constructive relationships with your freeholder or managing agent: Open and cooperative communication can be invaluable when dealing with consent requests, repairs, pet permissions, or sale enquiries. A responsive freeholder can materially reduce delays and disputes, whereas a poor relationship can exacerbate risks under the new regime.
Keep records of all consent requests and correspondence: Maintain clear written records of requests for consent, responses received, and any follow‑up. This evidence can be critical if disputes arise with tenants, freeholders, lenders, or during conveyancing.
Consider professional management: A managing or letting agent experienced in leasehold properties and the Renters’ Rights Act can help navigate compliance, tenant communication, and freeholder engagement, reducing the risk of costly mistakes.
Ensure insurance and liability responsibilities are clear: Confirm what is covered by the building insurance arranged by the freeholder and what remains your responsibility, including contents, landlord liability, and loss‑of‑rent cover. Clear insurance arrangements are essential given the increased risk of void periods and delayed repairs.
The interaction between leasehold obligations and the Renters’ Rights Act creates a complex and higher‑risk environment for leaseholder‑landlords. Those considering selling should plan well in advance, weigh the risks of vacant possession against selling with tenants in place, and seek specialist legal advice where uncertainty exists.
For many leasehold flat owners, the new regime may ultimately accelerate the decision to exit the rental market altogether.
Get started today - request a free & no-obligation sale price estimate for your flat
