Fixed Term lease with local housing authority

Hi I viewed a house that is for sale and agreed a price with vendors. House was to be first home. Vendors have a tenant in house under local authority Ras Scheme. Vendors are now after realising that Yes they can sell but because it is a fixed term lease the new purchaser will have to take on the tenant. This is not what i had wanted as tenant has 4 more years of fixed term left with one year down. Plus my mortgae is for residential purchase and I will need vacant possession. As its a fixed term lease my solicitor too has confirmed i would have to take the tenant with the house. I dont think i would meet requirements for buy to let if i went down that route. The vendors have an identical property next door and have spoken to the tenant who would have no issue moving next door if this was okay with the local authority. The vendor had not read the fine print on the arrangement with the local authority but needs to sell one of its properties and will house the tenant in the other. Is there any legal reason the local authority wont allow this. The second property is not suitable for me as the one i was looking at backs my elderly parents home and would be ideal to put gate between both properties whilst maintaining independence.

wow, this is a real shocker. A person who really needs to sell and is acting in good faith is prevented from getting vacant possession of the house. I would accept that the RAS scheme should have strong protections for tenants alright but there surely should be a proper balance. Perhaps to include a reasonable period of time to allow the tenant source another house for example.

More generally my understanding of the RAS scheme is that it is not attractive, in fact it's extremely unattractive. While there are upsides in terms of certainty of rent, there are very significant downsides. These include the fact that the house owner is (more or less) handing the house over to the local authority and has limited say in who is put in the house. The initial tenant is usually agreed to by the house owner but if that tenant leaves the house is under rent to the local authority who can put another tenant in the house, with no approval allowed by the house owner. Yet the house owner is responsible for any anti social activity. Any damage is for the owner to pay, the local authority disown any responsibility.

I also believe that the RAS scheme is not particularly in the best long terms interests of tenants either, due to the fact that so few owners take it up. If it were a much better scheme with a proper set of rights and responsibilities on all sides (owner, tenant and local authority) and it was fairer to all you might find that a lot more owners may take the scheme up. There are some very positive aspects to it, particularly certainty of rent. It would also lead to general improvements in the quality of accommodation available as the local authority usually inspects and requires accommodation be maintained to a proper standard. Benefits all around.

Regarding the situation posted, all I can advise is to talk to the various parties to see if a solution is possible. Sounds like you already have had legal advice so a compromise is required, if possible.

Finally, not judging, but once again it beggars belief that people sign agreements with long term implications without reading them.

Local authority dont seem to want to entertain the idea of the landlord moving the tenant next door with tenant agreeing to move. I cannot find any legal reason why? So i think maybe its the local authotity avoiding the paperwork. However Im no legal expert and maybe there is reason unknownst to me why the council wont allow the move. I would have thought it the obvious solution to the predicament tenant remains housed change of house number to next door?! :/ Very dissapointing