Will developers (or maybe buyers!) never learn

m_13

franklee wrote: »

I have started to think that if I see a house I would like to buy that is up for both sale and rent then the sensible thing to do is to rent it preferably on a one year contract. This prevents any sale for a year thus giving prices time to fall. It also allows a test of the property to see if it's liked. It locks other tenants out so the property doesn't get spoilt.

I'm not sure you are correct franklee in the case where the house has been previously occupied by the landlord at any time. Ground 1 for mandatory possession when an AST exists is when the tenancy agreement states that the landlord has previously lived in the property and might want it back.

Ground 1
Not later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground or the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice and (in either case) -

(a) at some time before the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them occupied the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; or
(b) the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them requires the dwelling-house as his or his spouse's only or principal home and neither the landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them) nor any other person who, as landlord, derived title under the landlord who gave the notice mentioned above acquired the reversion on the tenancy for money or money's worth.

Once they have it back under (a) they can do what they want with it, including selling it so the AST offers no protection that the house will not be sold.