Landlord sales slow as 12-month re-letting ban makes selling more difficult
3 months ago | 6 comments
Should we understand why a property is empty before introducing more damaging legislation?
12:01 AM, 29th September 2026, 3 days ago
16
Categories:
The Renters’ Rights Act has introduced new legislation to ensure some property is kept empty for a year. If a tenant is issued a section 8 for property sale purposes and the landlord subsequently changes their mind about the sale, the property cannot be re-let for a year.
Meanwhile, the government is contemplating legislation to take control of houses and re-let them, should they have been empty for six months.
Maybe it is too much to hope for, but could someone undertake a sensible project and first understand why property is empty before introducing more damaging statute?
Best wishes,
Paul
16 comments on this article
Learn from your peers’ experience
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Previous Article
Empty homes face earlier council takeoverRelated Articles
Why is the Labour government gambling with tenants’ homes?
2 months ago | 8 comments
Homelessness crisis set to worsen as think tank urges government action
2 months ago | 3 comments
Member Since July 2023 - Comments: 91
8:46 PM, 29th September 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Ana at 29/09/2026 – 20:18
Perhaps the problem is Landlords’ do not have a competent or effective representation. The NRLA appear to have been largely supportive of the RRA without asking for checks and balances and success criteria and accountability.
One suspicious thing is the government are now saying landlords must register on the new property database, but NRLA have accepted that Landlords who receive more than £100k from one property do not need to register. This should be a red flag and totally unacceptable? What are the reasons for this?
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 713 - Articles: 1
9:17 PM, 29th September 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 29/09/2026 – 10:02
Its not CPO – see previous article which clearly states ownership remains unchanged.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 713 - Articles: 1
9:21 PM, 29th September 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 29/09/2026 – 12:26
my reading was that the council will be the landlord.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 713 - Articles: 1
9:25 PM, 29th September 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 29/09/2026 – 11:21
WOW! didnt realise that and just checked as its unbelievable.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2061 - Articles: 21
11:52 AM, 30th September 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 21:21
The devil will be in the detail. Either the Council may act as agent for the landlord (but without having to pay the blindest bit of notice to what the landlord wants – rather as mortgage deed appoints a receiver put in by the lender as the borrower’s agent – or the Council may have a notional tenancy from the landlord. (I very much doubt it will be on terms that properly protect the landlord’s interests.)
After all, the plan is to go after those nasty, nasty landlords who leave their properties empty. Who in Government cares what happens to the valuable assets of such reprobates?
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3738 - Articles: 5
10:27 AM, 1st October 2026, About 10 hours ago
best solution is to make it clear on the S8 why you are selling. When Gen Rant et el start looking at reasons for evictions, it will be there in black and white.
‘Government interference has made the continuation of running the property as a private rental business impossible. I now plan to sell as a direct result’