What you might not know about Inheritance Tax and Whole of Life insurance

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

What you might not know about Inheritance Tax and Whole of Life insurance

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding inheritance tax planning is that people can “sort it out later”.

In reality, delaying inheritance tax planning, especially when it relies on Whole of Life cover, has a direct and measurable cost that compounds with every birthday and every change in health.

Many landlords now sit on portfolios worth several million pounds, yet still postpone meaningful IHT planning or, some might say ‘selfishly‘ leave the problem to their children to “work it out when the time comes”.

As explained previously in Why Whole of Life in trust might be the most misunderstood legacy savings plan available, the purpose of this type of planning is liquidity, certainty and control at precisely the moment a family is most vulnerable.

The timing of when you arrange cover can materially change affordability.

Take the following indicative monthly premiums for £1 million of Whole of Life cover for a single male ingood health:

Those figures alone tell a powerful story, because waiting from age 55 to age 70 more than doubles the monthly premium. That increase is simply the insurer recognising that the statistical likelihood of a claim has increased substantially. Postponing also risks becoming uninsuranble, or worse!

The following is indicative pricing for a healthy married couple or civil partners on a Joint Life Second Death basis for the same £1 million sum assured:

Joint Life Second Death policies are often more suitable for married couples and civil partners. This is because, under current UK inheritance tax rules, transfers between spouses and civil partners are generally exempt from inheritance tax.

That means when the first person dies, assets can normally pass to the surviving spouse or civil partner without triggering an immediate inheritance tax charge. The real inheritance tax problem often arises on the second death, when the combined family wealth eventually passes down to children or other beneficiaries, and that is precisely why Joint Life Second Death policies exist. Rather than paying out on the first death, the policy pays once both individuals have died. From an inheritance tax planning perspective, this can align far more closely with the point at which the tax liability actually crystallises.

The above also explains why many long-term unmarried couples are now considering civil partnerships. In many cases, the decision is not ideological or symbolic, it is commercial, practical and family focused. A civil partnership can fundamentally alter inheritance tax exposure between a couple and can also make certain legacy planning structures materially more efficient. For some families, that single legal step can preserve hundreds of thousands of pounds that might otherwise be lost unnecessarily to inheritance tax or forced property sales.

The hidden risk is not just age

The hidden risk is also health.

As discussed in The £200,000 diagnosis: why timing matters in inheritance tax planning, many people wrongly assume that insurance remains available whenever they eventually decide to apply, but that is not how underwriting works.

A diagnosis of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity, or even relatively common medical issues can dramatically increase premiums. In some cases, cover may become unavailable altogether.

The difference between arranging cover at 55 versus attempting to arrange it at 65 after a medical diagnosis can easily run into hundreds of thousands of pounds over the lifetime of the policy.

Why writing the policy into trust is usually critical

For many landlords, the most important part of Whole of Life planning is not actually the policy itself, it’s how the policy is owned.

If a Whole of Life policy is not written into trust, the payout normally forms part of the deceased’s estate., and that can create two significant problems.

First, the insurance proceeds themselves may become subject to inheritance tax, which partially defeats the purpose of arranging the cover in the first place.

Second, the funds may become tied up in probate at precisely the moment beneficiaries need liquidity most urgently.

That delay can create serious practical problems for families with large property portfolios because mortgage payments still need to be maintained, properties still need to be managed and inheritance tax may still become payable before the estate is fully administered.

By contrast, when a policy is correctly written into trust, the proceeds will normally sit outside the estate and can usually be paid far more quickly to trustees for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries.

That speed and accessibility can make an enormous difference.

Rather than beneficiaries becoming forced sellers under time pressure, trustees may have immediate access to liquidity that can be used to reduce debt, cover inheritance tax liabilities, stabilise cashflow or simply provide breathing space whilst longer-term decisions are made properly.

In many cases, the trust structure is just as important as the insurance policy itself.

Trust planning can also become more sophisticated for larger estates. Some families use discretionary trusts to provide flexibility across generations, whilst others combine life cover with lending structures, business succession planning or wider asset protection strategies.

The correct structure depends entirely on personal circumstances, ownership arrangements, debt levels, family dynamics and longer-term objectives.

That is another reason why inheritance tax planning should never be reduced to simply “buying an insurance policy”. The legal structure surrounding the policy is often where much of the long-term value and protection actually sits.

Special thanks for Georgiana Lacey-Scane, a whole of market, FCA regulated, Independent Financial Adviser for providing the indicative monthly premiums and general commentary above. This must not, however, be regarded as financial advise.

Why liquidity matters for landlords

For landlords, there is another important consideration: property wealth is often highly illiquid.

A family may appear wealthy on paper whilst simultaneously lacking the cash required to pay inheritance tax bills, refinance debt, or maintain portfolio continuity after death.

Beneficiaries may then face pressure to sell properties quickly, accept discounted offers, or refinance under difficult circumstances. That can be particularly damaging if the estate includes properties that would otherwise have been retained for income, succession or long-term family security.

For those reasons, many experienced landlords now view Whole of Life cover written into trust less as an insurance purchase and more as a liquidity planning tool.

The objective is often not to make beneficiaries richer, it is to stop families becoming forced sellers at exactly the wrong moment.

The above is not financial advice, nor is Whole of Life insurance written into trust a ‘silver bullet’ that solves every inheritance tax problem. It is simply one of several planning tools that Property118 consultants may discuss where business continuity, legacy planning and inheritance tax mitigation are important considerations for you and your family.

Arrange a free initial 30-minute Zoom consultation

OR …

/* “function”==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn(“The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1.”),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener(“gform/theme/scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+”_”+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),”filter”==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_588′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_588′).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery(‘html’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + parseInt(jQuery(‘body’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_588′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_588′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_588′).removeClass(‘gform_validation_error’);}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_588′).val();gformInitSpinner( 588, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [588, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_588′] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_588′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [588]);window[‘gf_submitting_588′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_588′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_588′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “588”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_588″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_588″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_588″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 588, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

The post What you might not know about Inheritance Tax and Whole of Life insurance appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: What you might not know about Inheritance Tax and Whole of Life insurance

Guidance clarifies council powers to enter premises and seize documents

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Guidance clarifies council powers to enter premises and seize documents

Councils can enter a landlord’s business premises under rules set out in the Renters’ Rights Act.

However, government guidance makes clear that the business premises power cannot be used to enter premises that are wholly or mainly used as a home.

In December last year, under the Renters’ Rights Act, councils were given powers to carry out inspections.

The government has now issued further guidance explaining how councils can use powers of entry, apply for warrants, and seize documents during investigations.

Councils must provide written evidence

The guidance says a rental sector business is defined in the Renters’ Rights Act, as a business connected with:

• letting residential accommodation in England
• creating licences to occupy such accommodation
• marketing such accommodation for a tenancy or licence to occupy
• managing such accommodation under a tenancy or licence to occupy

The investigatory powers guidance says councils may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter specified rental sector business premises where a non-routine inspection cannot be carried out with at least 24 hours’ notice.

The guidance says councils must provide written evidence on oath that one of the following applies:

• entry has been refused, or there are reasonable grounds to believe entry will be refused, and the occupier has been notified of the intention to apply for a warrant
• giving notice might result in evidence being hidden, removed, or tampered with
• no occupier is present, and waiting for an occupier to be present would defeat the purpose of entry

The guidance also says councils must provide evidence that they are acting in an official capacity, and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the premises are being used for rental sector business and are not wholly or mainly residential accommodation.

Councils must also have reasonable grounds to expect relevant documents to be held on the premises which may be required to be produced or may be liable to seizure under the Renters’ Rights Act.

Officers must usually provide identification

Under the powers, councils can seize documents in electronic or written form.

The guidance explains that councils may require documents to help determine whether there has been compliance with rented accommodation legislation where there are reasonable grounds to suspect non-compliance.

Where a document is held electronically, the guidance says councils may require a copy in a format that can be easily taken away, such as a hard copy.

The guidance says that where officers enter business premises without a warrant, they must provide at least one person on the premises with evidence of their identity and authority, if anyone is present.

It also says that where it is not reasonably practicable to provide identification, information gathered during the inspection may still be used.

The guidance says: “When using either of the powers of entry into a business premises, you have the power to seize and detain documents if you have a reasonable suspicion that they may be required as evidence in proceedings for a breach or offence under the rented accommodation legislation.”

It adds: “If there are people on the premises, before you seize documents, you must show at least one person proof of your identity and authority. However, if it is not reasonably practicable to do so, you do not need to.”

Councils have more power than the police

Landlord law expert at Landlord Licensing & Defence, Phil Turtle, has previously told Property118 the new power of entry is simply embodying what councils have been able to bend the law to achieve for years.

He explains: “A council can still inspect a property even if the tenant and landlord refuse to give permission. Councils have more power than the police to enter your home.

“Already, before the Renters’ Rights Act powers of entry: The Housing Act gives councils entry under Section 239 which gives them the ability to go in and inspect because of an official complaint to determine whether any function under parts one to four of the Housing Act should be exercised. If the council think anything is wrong in the property or if anybody has complained, they can go in under Section 239 in 24 hours.”

“But when dealing with an unlicensed property, councils do not need to give 24-hour notice. If the council believe that there is an offence under Housing Act 2004 Section 72 which is anything to do with HMO licensing or Section 95 (selective licensing) and they have reason to believe the property is unlicensed, they don’t need to give notice they can just turn-up and demand entry.

“Often the council will do a dawn-style raid at five in the morning with eight or so officers dressed to look like police uniforms, and they’ll threaten their way in.”

He says landlords and tenants can be fined if they obstruct entry to the inspection.

He adds: “We hear so many stories that councils tell foreign nationals that if they don’t let them in, they will get deported.

“The officers will barge their way upstairs to count how many people are in beds and claim they are all living there. Councils seem to think that an unlicensed HMO is second only to murder!

“If a landlord or a tenant obstructs this entry, it will be classed as a level four fine costing up to £2,500, and they can still enter the property!

The post Guidance clarifies council powers to enter premises and seize documents appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Guidance clarifies council powers to enter premises and seize documents

The great landlord contradiction: wanting companies, stuck in personal ownership

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

The great landlord contradiction: wanting companies, stuck in personal ownership

If most landlords were starting again today, many would not structure things the same way. That is becoming increasingly clear. There is a growing disconnect between how portfolios are currently held and how landlords would choose to hold them if given a clean slate. The preference has shifted, but the structure has not. That gap is not accidental. It reflects friction.

For landlords who have built portfolios over many years, decisions were made under different conditions. Financing, tax treatment and practical considerations all pointed towards personal ownership at the time. Those decisions were rational when they were made.

The problem is that structures do not evolve as easily as thinking does. Changing ownership is rarely straightforward. It can involve financing constraints, tax considerations and legal complexity, all of which create inertia. As a result, many landlords find themselves operating within structures that no longer reflect how they would choose to invest today. This creates a tension. On one hand, there is a clear preference for a different approach. On the other, there are practical barriers to getting there.

Evidence of this can be seen in the Property118 Landlord Sentiment Survey Q1 2026, where a majority of landlords still hold property in personal ownership, despite many indicating that they would favour company structures for future acquisitions.

That combination is telling because it shows that the issue is not awareness, it is implementation. Landlords understand the direction they would take if starting today, but existing portfolios anchor them to decisions made in the past. Over time, that gap becomes more noticeable, particularly as portfolios mature and long-term planning becomes more important. This is where structural questions begin to move to the forefront, not because landlords are looking to make wholesale changes overnight, but because they are increasingly aware that their current structure may not fully support where they want to go next.

For now, one conclusion stands out: landlords are not lacking clarity about how they would invest today, they are navigating the complexity of changing what they built yesterday.

For many landlords, the question is not whether the market is changing, but what that change means for their own position.

If you are holding a portfolio with relatively low borrowing, or are beginning to reassess how your assets are structured, this is often the point where a more joined-up view becomes useful.

An invitation for established landlords

If you find the Property118 articles helpful and are curious about how those ideas apply to your own portfolio, you are welcome to take the conversation a step further.

These conversations are typically most useful for landlords with established portfolios and relatively modest borrowing who are beginning to reflect on how their assets could work more effectively in the years ahead.

/* “function”==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn(“The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1.”),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener(“gform/theme/scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+”_”+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),”filter”==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_585′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_585′).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery(‘html’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + parseInt(jQuery(‘body’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).removeClass(‘gform_validation_error’);}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_585′).val();gformInitSpinner( 585, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [585, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_585′] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [585]);window[‘gf_submitting_585′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_585′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_585′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “585”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_585″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_585″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_585″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 585, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

From there we can arrange a free introductory discussion to explore how your portfolio works as a whole and what that might mean for the years ahead.

The post The great landlord contradiction: wanting companies, stuck in personal ownership appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: The great landlord contradiction: wanting companies, stuck in personal ownership

Why some landlords are selling before the next repair bill arrives

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Why some landlords are selling before the next repair bill arrives

Landlords rarely decide to sell because of one dramatic event, they decide after years of smaller ones. For example, they may have dealt with all of the following over several years of ownership.

• The boiler that fails just before winter.
• The roof leak that appears after heavy rain.
• The tenant issue that becomes a weekly distraction.
• The appliance replacement that arrives at the wrong time.
• The contractor who promises Monday and appears Thursday.

The slow accumulation of friction

Owning rental property can be rewarding, but it can also create a gradual build-up of mental drag, especially for landlords who have owned for many years. It is rarely a single event that changes how an owner feels, it is the interruptions. The sense that another job is always around the corner and the feeling that weekends and holidays are never entirely your own.

It is not always about wanting out

Many sellers are not abandoning property altogether, they may simply be choosing to dispose of one higher-maintenance asset, reduce management workload, release capital from weaker stock, keep easier, better-performing properties and/or simplify life without full exit.

David Coughlin, director of Landlord Sales Agency, explains: “Most landlords we speak to are not panicking or fire-selling, they’re simply tired of the friction that builds up over years of ownership.

“We currently have a landlord who originally purchased five properties through us in the North West back in 2006–07 and has now come back looking to simplify her portfolio. All the properties are tenanted and not in great condition, so the best solution is likely selling ‘as-is’ to avoid voids and major refurbishment costs.

“One of the tenants is already interested in buying, and even if we don’t sell every property, selectively disposing of a few higher-maintenance or underperforming assets can significantly improve cashflow and reduce stress across the wider portfolio.”

The hidden cost of “just one more year”

We often hear: “I’ll hold it one more year.”, and sometimes that works well, but sometimes that extra year brings another repair cycle, another difficult tenancy issue, another insurance increase, another period of avoidable stress and another delay to wider plans. Time has value too.

Why certain properties can still sell well

In selected markets, properties with mainstream appeal, sensible condition and realistic pricing can still attract strong interest. That is particularly true where both landlords and owner-occupiers may compete. The key is understanding which assets are likely to perform best in today’s market.

A conversation worth having?

If you are already wondering whether the next repair bill may be the moment you finally act, it may be worth reviewing options before that bill arrives.

Sometimes the right answer is to hold.

Sometimes it is to improve the property.

Sometimes it is to sell one tiring asset and keep the stronger remainder.

These discussions are often most useful for established landlords who want fewer interruptions, more control and decisions made on their terms rather than a leaking roof’s.

FREE 30-MINUTE CHAT VIA ZOOM

/* “function”==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn(“The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1.”),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener(“gform/theme/scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+”_”+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),”filter”==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_585′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_585′).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery(‘html’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + parseInt(jQuery(‘body’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).removeClass(‘gform_validation_error’);}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_585′).val();gformInitSpinner( 585, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [585, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_585′] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [585]);window[‘gf_submitting_585′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_585′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_585′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “585”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_585″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_585″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_585″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 585, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

The post Why some landlords are selling before the next repair bill arrives appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why some landlords are selling before the next repair bill arrives

Concerns raised over £500 landlord tribunal fees and court delays

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Concerns raised over £500 landlord tribunal fees and court delays

An industry body has warned that hefty tribunal fees must not detract from wider court reform as the Renters’ Rights Act comes into force.

Propertymark has told letting agents and landlords about a new tiered fee framework for the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, introduced under the Renters’ Rights Act which will see landlords being thumped with a £500 bill to contest a council fine.

The warning comes as the government claims its reforms will reduce possession cases reaching the courts.

Renters’ Rights Act significantly expands the role of the Tribunal

The government has announced a £47 fee for tenants challenging a rent increase through the first-tier property tribunal.

However, a £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee will apply for landlords appealing new financial penalties that local authorities can impose under the Renters’ Rights Act. New rent repayment order routes introduced by the act will also fall under the existing fee structure, with a £114 application fee and a £227 hearing fee.

Propertymark writes on its website that letting agents need to be aware of the changes.

The industry body said: “The Renters’ Rights Act significantly expands the role of the tribunal in the private rented sector. Tenants will be able to challenge proposed rent increases, challenge the validity of rent increase notices, and, within the first six months of a tenancy, ask the tribunal to terminate a tenancy if they believe the starting rent is above the open market rent.

“For letting agents, this means rent-setting evidence, market comparables, tenancy records and notice processes will become even more important. Agents should ensure landlords understand that rent increases may face closer scrutiny and that clear, well-documented reasoning will help reduce disputes.”

Functioning justice systems underpins the whole PRS

Propertymark is also calling on the government to address court delays, as under the Renters’ Rights Act, landlords will rely on Section 8 grounds following the abolition of Section 21.

According to the industry body, the average time from claim to repossession has risen to more than 68 weeks, compared with just over 20 weeks in 2019.

The industry body said: “A functioning justice system underpins the whole private rented sector. If landlords cannot regain possession when they have a legitimate reason to do so, confidence in the sector falls.

“That risk is especially acute at a time when demand for rented homes remains high, and supply is under pressure.”

The government claims the Renters’ Rights Act will reduce court demand, arguing that cases with clear, well-evidenced grounds will proceed more efficiently and overall caseloads should fall.

However, industry experts have warned that time will tell whether the courts can cope with any influx of cases.

Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said on the NRLA website: “The housing minister, Matthew Pennycook, has stressed more than once that landlords will still be able to regain their properties quickly when necessary and that the courts can cope. Time will tell.

“In the meantime, it is essential we and the government actively monitor implementation and consider litigation and the impact of case law as parts of the Act are tested in court.”

As previously reported by Property118, in a letter to the Justice Select Committee, the NRLA warned that the government has not provided clarity on how the courts will be prepared for the digital possession process.

The post Concerns raised over £500 landlord tribunal fees and court delays appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Concerns raised over £500 landlord tribunal fees and court delays

Think tank urges government to introduce rent controls

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Think tank urges government to introduce rent controls

A left-wing think tank has called on the government to introduce rent controls to tackle “unaffordable housing costs”.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) warns more than 2.5 million renters could end up living in unaffordable housing without government intervention.

The call comes as the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) has urged the next Welsh government not to introduce rent controls.

Current system leaves renters exposed

The think tank claims the government should stabilise rent increases through a “double lock” system, limiting annual rent rises to whichever is lower than inflation or wage growth.

According to the think tank, if the system had been introduced in 2020, rents would be around 7% lower by the end of the decade, saving the average renter about £850 a year in England and more than £1,700 in London.

It also estimates the policy would reduce the number of households facing unaffordable rents by 140,000 compared with no intervention.

Dr Maya Singer Hobbs, senior research fellow at IPPR, explains: “Millions of renters are being pushed to the brink by a housing market that simply isn’t working for them. This is no longer a marginal issue affecting a small group, it is a mainstream cost-of-living crisis hitting working households across the country.

“Without action, things will get worse. The current system leaves renters exposed to global shocks and rising costs they have no power to control.

“The government has taken important steps to strengthen renters’ rights, but it now needs to go further. A fair system of rent caps would rebalance the market, protect households from sharp increases, and ensure that rents grow in line with what people can actually afford.”

Slam the brakes on soaring rents

Generation Rent has also called for rent controls, claiming more than four months of renters’ income in a year now goes directly to their landlord.

Pointing to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), private renters in England spend 36% of their gross income on rent.

Ben Twomey, chief executive of Generation Rent, said: “It’s not right that over four months of our income every year is being swallowed up by landlords. While it was encouraging to see the government recognise this through its recent consideration of a rent freeze, we need to see longer-term action.

“Renters in some of our biggest cities are facing the most back-breaking costs. The government must urgently give metro mayors the power to slam the brakes on soaring rents through limiting rent increases.”

Drive landlords out of the market

However, industry experts and politicians have warned that introducing rent controls will do more harm than good.

Sir James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, told The Telegraph: “Rent controls would be completely disastrous for tenants. Cap what landlords can charge and you shrink supply, push rents for new tenants higher and drive landlords out of the market altogether.”

“Labour’s red tape and higher taxes have already forced up rents and reduced choice for renters.”

Paul Shamplina, founder of Landlord Action, told The Telegraph: “We understand affordability issues, but rent controls simply do not work. Landlord panic has been at its height under the Renters’ Rights Act, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and good landlords are leaving the sector.”

Rent controls would be a disaster

The news comes as Plaid Cymru pledged to “better protect renters” as they emerged as the largest single party in the Senedd in the Welsh elections, although without majority control.

However, the NRLA have warned the next Welsh government introducing rent controls in Wales will disincentivise investment in the private rented sector.

Chief executive of the NRLA, Ben Beadle, said: “Rent controls would be a disaster for renters and the Welsh private rented sector. These measures will reduce the supply of private rented accommodation at a time when Wales is suffering from an unprecedented supply crisis.

“Wherever rent controls have been introduced, they have failed and, in this case, would not address the root causes of high rents, the spiralling costs investors face, which are passed on to tenants through increased rents.

“Whatever the outcome of coalition negotiations, we look forward to working with ministers in the next government to ensure Welsh landlords’ concerns are taken into account.”

The post Think tank urges government to introduce rent controls appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Think tank urges government to introduce rent controls

Why financially secure landlords are choosing to reduce their portfolios

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Why financially secure landlords are choosing to reduce their portfolios

Security was always meant to be the end goal. For many landlords, that meant building a portfolio large enough, and stable enough, to provide long-term income and financial independence. Over time, that goal has been achieved. Debt has been reduced, equity has accumulated and risk has been managed. What follows is not always what people expect.

Instead of accelerating, many landlords begin to slow down. The assumption might be that financial strength naturally leads to further expansion. In practice, it often leads to reassessment. Once the original objective has been met, the question becomes less about what else can be built and more about what should be kept. That shift is subtle, but it changes behaviour. Growth requires effort, attention and complexity. Maintaining a larger portfolio brings with it more moving parts, more decisions and more exposure to factors outside of your control. At a certain point, the trade-off no longer feels worthwhile.

This is where simplification begins to take priority. Rather than adding more properties, landlords begin to refine what they already have. That might mean selling selectively, reducing exposure or restructuring how the portfolio is held. The focus moves towards clarity and control.

Evidence of this can be seen in the Property118 Landlord Sentiment Survey Q1 2026, where a significant proportion of landlords report low levels of borrowing, yet a majority still intend to reduce their portfolios.

This is not behaviour driven by necessity, it is driven by choice. When financial pressure is removed, decisions become more intentional. Landlords are no longer reacting to the market. They are deciding how much of it they want to remain exposed to. That creates a different kind of signal. It suggests that the sector is not simply responding to external conditions, but evolving internally as landlords reach a stage where preservation, simplicity and long-term alignment become more important than continued growth.

For now, one conclusion stands out: financial security is not leading landlords to expand further, it is giving them the freedom to step back.

For many landlords, the question is not whether the market is changing, but what that change means for their own position.

If you are holding a portfolio with relatively low borrowing, or are beginning to reassess how your assets are structured, this is often the point where a more joined-up view becomes useful.

An invitation for established landlords

If you find the Property118 articles helpful and are curious about how those ideas apply to your own portfolio, you are welcome to take the conversation a step further.

These conversations are typically most useful for landlords with established portfolios and relatively modest borrowing who are beginning to reflect on how their assets could work more effectively in the years ahead.

/* “function”==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn(“The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1.”),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener(“gform/theme/scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+”_”+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),”filter”==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_585′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_585′).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery(‘html’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + parseInt(jQuery(‘body’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).removeClass(‘gform_validation_error’);}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_585′).val();gformInitSpinner( 585, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [585, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_585′] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_585′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [585]);window[‘gf_submitting_585′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_585′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_585′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “585”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_585″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_585″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_585″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 585, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

From there we can arrange a free introductory discussion to explore how your portfolio works as a whole and what that might mean for the years ahead.

The post Why financially secure landlords are choosing to reduce their portfolios appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why financially secure landlords are choosing to reduce their portfolios

Buy to let mortgage costs climb 64% in 10 years

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Buy to let mortgage costs climb 64% in 10 years

Buy to let landlords are paying up to £5,839 more over a two-year mortgage term than they were a decade ago, research suggests.

And, tucked behind the headline figure, the sharper squeeze is being felt by those on interest-only loans, where monthly costs have climbed by nearly two-thirds.

The analysis by Benham and Reeves found that the average monthly cost of a full repayment BTL mortgage has risen from £695 to £1,031 over the past 10 years.

That is an increase of 48.4%, or £336 a month, based on the average house price, a 25% deposit and a 25-year mortgage term.

RRA impact

The firm’s director, Marc von Grundherr, said: “The buy to let sector has faced a relentless stream of challenges over the last decade and landlords are now contending with substantially higher mortgage costs at the same time as sweeping legislative reform via the Renters’ Rights Act.

“While house prices have increased considerably over the last 10 years, higher borrowing costs have further intensified the financial burden facing landlords and this has been particularly notable for those utilising interest-only mortgages, which have traditionally formed a large part of the buy-to-let market.”

He added: “Many landlords have already absorbed significant increases in operational costs in recent years, from taxation changes and licensing requirements through to energy efficiency regulations and wider compliance obligations.

“Despite this, the sector continues to demonstrate resilience because rental demand remains extremely strong and, in many parts of the country, vastly outweighs the level of available stock.”

House prices rise

The lettings and estate agent say the average house price has risen from £191,298 to £267,957 over the same period, a 40.1% increase.

As a result, the typical landlord now needs a buy to let mortgage of £200,968 after putting down a 25% deposit of £66,989.

A decade ago, the comparable loan requirement was £143,474.

Borrowing rates have also moved higher, with the average buy to let mortgage rate rising from 3.19% to 3.73%.

Monthly BTL interest-only

The increase has been steeper for landlords using interest-only mortgages, which have long been used in the sector because they keep monthly costs lower.

The average monthly interest-only payment has risen from £381 to £625.

That is a 63.8% jump, adding £243 a month to the cost of borrowing.

Over a standard two-year fixed mortgage term, the firm estimates that landlords are now paying £5,839 more in mortgage costs than they would have done 10 years ago.

For assistance with any type of buy to let (BTL), property or commercial finance please complete the contact form below:

/* “function”==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn(“The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1.”),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener(“gform/theme/scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+”_”+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),”filter”==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_483′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_483′).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery(‘html’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + parseInt(jQuery(‘body’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_483′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_483′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_483′).removeClass(‘gform_validation_error’);}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_483′).val();gformInitSpinner( 483, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [483, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_483′] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_483′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [483]);window[‘gf_submitting_483′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_483′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_483′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “483”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_483″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_483″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_483″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 483, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

The post Buy to let mortgage costs climb 64% in 10 years appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Buy to let mortgage costs climb 64% in 10 years

Landlords face RRA tribunal delay chaos

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlords face RRA tribunal delay chaos

England’s tribunal and court system is already struggling with case delays as the Renters’ Rights Act adds fresh pressure to rent appeals and possession cases.

The warning comes from Real Estate:UK which submitted Freedom of Information requests to the five Tribunal Property Chambers.

It asked for the number of tenant rent appeal cases over the past three full years, and the average time taken to consider, process and rule on them.

Four chambers responded, with three providing substantive data and one confirming it did not hold the information requested.

To underline the issue, Ministry of Justice data shows the average time between a court accepting a private landlord possession claim and repossession under the grounds-based route has risen by three weeks over the past year to 27.4 weeks.

PRS attraction hit

The organisation represents more than 500 members and its assistant director, Kate Butler, said: “With the Renters’ Rights Act and s21 abolition now in effect, and given serious concerns as to the stability of the market, many would expect that the government would have, and be able to share, a basic understanding of the impacts of the Act on the judicial system and its detailed plans to mitigate these.

“Yet here we have new evidence which clearly demonstrates a clear and deeply concerning lack of consistent collection of rent appeal data within the Tribunal process, and evidence that 80% of current recorded appeals take over 10 weeks to decide.”

She added: “Expanding the use of the s13 process to all tenancies will dramatically increase the number of appeals the Tribunal hears, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will be able to effectively deal with this, or that the government will be able to undertake its commitment to measure ‘overwhelm’.

“This not only undermines the attractiveness of the PRS for new investors, but it will negatively impact existing landlords and incentivise their exit.”

More than 10 weeks

Across the three tribunals that supplied figures, 2,944 rent appeal cases were recorded over the period.

However, only one chamber confirmed that it held data on how long those appeals took to conclude.

That chamber said just 21% of appeals were decided within 10 weeks before the Renters’ Rights Act came into force.

The findings raise questions over how ministers will measure whether the tribunal system has become ‘overwhelmed’.

The organisation is also questioning how the government’s commitment to allow the backdating of rent in unsuccessful appeals occur where serious delays are evident.

Government has no data

Ministers have also confirmed through written Parliamentary Questions that the government does not hold centralised data on appeal volumes or processing times.

Real Estate:UK says that leaves no reliable baseline for measuring additional pressure as the Act expands use of the Section 13 process for challenging rent increases.

The government has also committed to carrying out a viability assessment of an alternative or filtering body to make initial rent determinations before cases reach the tribunal.

However, no timetable or operating detail has yet been confirmed.

The firm says the government has also not published its Justice Impact Test, which assesses the effect of the Act on the tribunal process, and is resisting its release.

The organisation also points to continuing delays in possession cases, despite ministers having pledged ‘court readiness’ alongside the Act’s implementation.

The government has announced £50 million of funding linked to court readiness, but Real Estate:UK says ministers have not provided specific metrics, timelines or a definition of what readiness means.

The post Landlords face RRA tribunal delay chaos appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlords face RRA tribunal delay chaos

Landlord resilience grows despite legislative pressure

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlord resilience grows despite legislative pressure

Despite ongoing pressure in the private rented sector, landlords remain resilient, with new data showing most are still making a profit.

Research by lender Foundation reveals that 84% of landlords report their lettings activity is profitable, with average rental yields edging up to 6.5%.

The figures come after the Renters’ Rights Act came into force on 1 May 2026.

PRS continues to prove its resilience

According to the data, confidence levels are also showing tentative signs of recovery. The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) says its landlord confidence measure rose across all regions in Q1, while the proportion of landlords planning to remain in the sector increased to 63%, up from 58% in Q4 2025.

Following the government’s announcement that all private rented properties must meet EPC C targets by 2030, 62% of landlords with lower-rated properties say they plan to carry out improvement works to meet the new requirements.

Nearly four in 10 landlords with borrowing (39%) are planning to remortgage in the next year, while the average portfolio size has increased to 7.3 properties.

Grant Hendry, director of sales at Foundation, says many landlords are adapting to changes in the private rented sector.

He said: “The latest data shows a landlord community and wider private rental sector that continues to prove its resilience. While landlords are clearly facing a range of challenges, from rising costs to regulatory change, the fundamentals remain strong. Profitability is holding up, yields are stable, and we’re seeing early signs that confidence is beginning to return.

“What is particularly notable is the way in which landlords are adapting. Portfolio sizes are increasing, more investors are taking a structured, long-term approach, and there is clear evidence of landlords planning ahead, whether that is through refinancing activity or preparing for future EPC requirements.

“At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore the pressures that remain. Softer tenant demand and rising voids show this is a more balanced market than in recent years, and some landlords will continue to reassess their position. However, the overall picture is one of a sector that is evolving rather than retreating.”

Landlords leaving the market

However, the lender also reveals that some landlords are choosing to exit the market, with 42% said they plan to sell at least one rental property in the next year.

The data also reveals round 61% of landlords expect to increase rents over the next 12 months, with an average projected rise of 5.7%.

The post Landlord resilience grows despite legislative pressure appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlord resilience grows despite legislative pressure