Landlords demand efficiency and cost control for new enforced regulation?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlords demand efficiency and cost control for new enforced regulation?

The government is imposing new regulations on new landlords’ databases. As responsible landlords, we demand efficiency and proportionality in compliance.

A recent excellent article by the property118 team pointed to the disproportionate nature of regulation. >> https://www.property118.com/deposit-disputes-remain-rare-despite-rising-rents-tds/

The data points to the schemes holding 4.7 million deposits amounting to schemes holding £5.5 billion in cash, around £1,100 per tenancy.

Remarkably, only 1% of deposits are disputed, amounting to £55 million in dispute, but the suppliers can presumably earn interest on the deposits. Assuming this is 5% they earn £275 million a year. Five times the disputed deposits simply for putting the deposit in a bank.

So, if the government are demanding new databases for registration of all and bad landlords, these companies have plenty of money to cover their production and already hold 5 million landlord records.

Landlords demand that the government ensure any regulatory databases are provided free for landlords and tenants at the point of use. The money doesn’t need to be found; it is already presumably being made by the companies supplying the DPS schemes.

Let’s hope the government doesn’t run another cash cow for its preferred computer alliance and instead ensures an existing supplier extends their existing landlord database, paid for by existing DPS schemes providers. Free of Charge to cover any new regulation for landlords’ registration. If charges are made, Landlords would likely pass these onto tenants in any case.

What does the Property118 community think?

Paul

The post Landlords demand efficiency and cost control for new enforced regulation? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlords demand efficiency and cost control for new enforced regulation?

From Stalled Project to Success – How a Landlord Used Bridging to Complete a Deal

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

From Stalled Project to Success – How a Landlord Used Bridging to Complete a Deal

Not every property project goes to plan. Unexpected costs, tight deadlines, and lender withdrawals can stall even the most experienced landlord’s plans. This case study shows how bridging finance, when used strategically, turned a stalled project into a success – and highlights the lessons other landlords can learn.

The Challenge

A landlord had agreed to purchase a semi-commercial property at auction. The property required refurbishment before it would qualify for a term mortgage. Their original lender withdrew just weeks before completion, leaving the landlord at risk of losing the deposit and the property.

The Solution – Bridging Finance

An NACFB broker stepped in to arrange bridging finance. The facility provided:

• Fast access to funds to complete the auction purchase on time.
• Up to 70% loan-to-value, with interest rolled into the loan to protect cash flow.
• Flexibility to cover refurbishment works required to bring the property up to mortgageable standard.

The loan term was set at 12 months, giving the landlord time to complete works and plan a refinance.

The Outcome

Within eight months, the property was fully refurbished and re-let. A commercial lender then refinanced the property onto a long-term facility at a higher valuation, allowing the bridging loan to be repaid in full. The uplift in value and income covered the cost of the bridging finance and improved long-term returns.

Lessons Learned

• Always evidence the exit – the refinance was pre-agreed in principle before the bridging loan completed.
• Factor in contingency – the landlord built a budget buffer for unexpected works, avoiding liquidity pressure.
• Use the right broker – the NACFB broker matched the case with a lender comfortable with both the property type and the refurbishment plan.

Why This Matters for Landlords

Bridging finance is not cheap, but in the right circumstances it can save deals and unlock value. This case demonstrates that when applied with discipline, bridging can be a tool for opportunity rather than risk.

Conclusion and Takeaway

Stalled projects do not have to end in losses. With the right broker and lender, bridging finance can turn setbacks into successes. The key is having a clear plan, realistic numbers, and an exit strategy that is achievable and evidenced.

Next Steps

If you would like to explore bridging finance options for your own projects, please complete the short form below and an NACFB member broker will be in touch.

/* “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_579′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_579′).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_579′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_579′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_579′).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_579′).val();gformInitSpinner( 579, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [579, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_579′] = 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_579′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [579]);window[‘gf_submitting_579′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_579′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_579′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “579”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_579″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_579″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_579″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 579, 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(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

Published: 24 December 2025

The post From Stalled Project to Success – How a Landlord Used Bridging to Complete a Deal appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: From Stalled Project to Success – How a Landlord Used Bridging to Complete a Deal

Council seeks views on plans to license and inspect all HMOs

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Council seeks views on plans to license and inspect all HMOs

A council has launched a consultation on proposals to introduce additional HMO licensing, which would mean all HMOs in the area would need to be inspected.

Telford and Wrekin Council has launched a 10-week consultation on the proposals and is asking landlords to have their say.

We want to make sure that homes in HMO sector are safe

Currently, in the area, only HMOs accommodating five or more people forming two or more households are subject to mandatory licensing. HMOs housing more than six people also require full planning permission, while those with six or fewer occupants can be established through permitted development rights.

The proposed Article 4 direction would remove the option for landlords of smaller HMOs to use permitted development rights, meaning planning permission would be required for any new HMO regardless of size. The council has said existing HMOs would be unaffected by the planning changes.

The council claim the proposals would allow it to identify the location of all new HMOs, while the additional licensing scheme would focus on improving safety and hazard compliance among landlords.

Councillor Richard Overton, Deputy Leader of Telford and Wrekin Council and Cabinet Member for Highways, Housing and Enforcement, said: “We want to make sure that homes in the HMO sector are safe, well-managed and meet fair standards, and the proposals we’ve put forward are designed to help us achieve that.

“The consultation is now live, and this is the moment when people’s voices are essential. Nothing has been decided yet, and we need residents, landlords and community organisations to tell us what they think so that any future approach is balanced, transparent and genuinely shaped by local people.”

Landlords in the area can view the consultation on Article 4 directions by clicking here and additional licensing by clicking here.

The post Council seeks views on plans to license and inspect all HMOs appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Council seeks views on plans to license and inspect all HMOs

Renters’ Rights Act breaching Buy to Let mortgage terms and conditions?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Renters’ Rights Act breaching Buy to Let mortgage terms and conditions?

Hi Everyone, With the Renters’ Rights Act stating that all tenancies are to be periodic from May 2026, how will that affect Buy to Let mortgages that have terms that condition the tenancy must be an AST?

Are we being forced by the Act to breach mortgage Terms and Conditions?

Is there a provision in the act for this anomaly?

Kevin

Editor’s Note:

What the Renters’ Rights Act Does

The RRA abolishes fixed-term ASTs and replaces them with a single assured periodic tenancy (APT) for residential lets from 1 May 2026 (the commencement date). This means:

All current fixed-term ASTs will automatically convert to periodic tenancies on that date.

After commencement, landlords cannot grant new fixed-term ASTs, and every tenancy will be rolling (e.g., monthly).

Tenants can end tenancies by giving statutory notice (e.g., 2 months).

This is a statutory change to housing law, and it replaces the AST regime under the Housing Act 1988 with a different form of assured periodic tenancy.

Mortgage Terms Requiring ASTs

Many buy-to-let mortgage contracts currently include wording like:

“The property must be let on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) in line with the Housing Act 1988.” Lenders Handbook

This is because lenders traditionally saw fixed-term ASTs as giving a predictable income stream and clear possession rights.

With the AST regime abolished by statute, landlords won’t be able to comply with those specific contractual terms anymore because, quite simply, ASTs will no longer exist.

Does the RRA Force You to Breach Your Mortgage Terms?

No, not technically.

Statutory Override

The RRA changes housing law, and statutory law generally overrides private contracts where there is a conflict (e.g., you can’t give a fixed-term AST if the law forbids it).

A lender’s requirement for an AST becomes impossible to fulfil, not something you are choosing to breach.

Lenders Will Need to Update Mortgage Conditions

Lenders, especially mortgage underwriters and their legal team, will have to revise their acceptable tenancy definitions to reflect the new assured periodic tenancy regime, because the old AST form will no longer be lawful.

Industry guidance (e.g., mortgage handbook acceptability criteria) is already tied to ASTs, but these frameworks will need to be updated as the law changes. Lenders Handbook

Practical Position

Post-Commencement, your tenancy will be what the statute says it is: an assured periodic tenancy. You will not be in breach of housing law by offering this; it’s the only lawful form.

If there is a conflict with a mortgage condition that hasn’t been updated, you would raise it with your lender.

What Lenders Are Likely to Do

While we don’t yet have a unified published set of post-RRA mortgage criteria from lenders, industry commentary suggests:

Lenders will adjust product terms

Mortgage lenders will update wording so that assured periodic tenancies are acceptable instead of ASTs.

Underwriting criteria may emphasise tenancy stability, rental income security, and possession rights under the new Section 8 regime rather than fixed-term ASTs.

Possible shift in risk assessment

Some lenders might adopt stricter serviceability tests, higher rental coverage requirements, and more cautious criteria (e.g., higher deposits or LTV limits) due to perceived volatility with periodic tenancies. Kerr & Watson

No automatic breach

Simply having periodic tenancies because the law changed will not, on its own, put you in breach of your mortgage. If a lender tries to enforce an AST requirement after 1 May 2026, that mortgage condition will likely be unenforceable to the extent it requires something illegal/illegal to grant.

The post Renters’ Rights Act breaching Buy to Let mortgage terms and conditions? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Renters’ Rights Act breaching Buy to Let mortgage terms and conditions?

Illegal Activity by Tenants – Are You Covered?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Illegal Activity by Tenants – Are You Covered?

One of the worst-case scenarios for landlords is discovering that tenants have used a rental property for illegal activity. Cannabis farms, unlicensed HMOs, or even organised crime can leave behind major damage, loss of income, and potential legal consequences. The immediate question for most landlords is: does my insurance cover this? The answer depends on the wording of your policy, your disclosure at inception, and whether you met inspection requirements.

Common Types of Illegal Activity in Rental Properties

• Cannabis farms – tampered electrics, water damage, mould, and structural weakening from extraction systems.
• Subletting and unlicensed HMOs – breaching licence conditions, fire safety rules, and creating liability exposures.
• Fraudulent use – tenants using the address for identity fraud or illegal businesses.
• Anti-social behaviour – drug dealing, disorder, or activities that create reputational risk for the landlord.

How Insurers Typically Respond

Most landlord insurance policies exclude damage or liability arising from illegal activity. However, some specialist insurers will cover malicious damage caused by tenants engaged in illegal use, provided you can show you took reasonable precautions and complied with inspection conditions. The outcome often hinges on evidence.

Inspection Requirements

To reduce risk, many insurers insist on regular documented inspections. For example:

• Inspections every 3 months (some require every 6–12 weeks).
• Written logs and, ideally, date-stamped photos.
• Prompt reporting of any concerns to insurers or authorities.

Failure to inspect may give insurers grounds to decline a claim, arguing that the landlord did not meet policy conditions.

What About Malicious Damage?

If illegal activity results in deliberate destruction, some policies will pay under malicious damage by tenants – but only if this extension is included. Even then, insurers may refuse claims if they believe the landlord failed to exercise proper tenant checks or inspections.

Loss of Rent – Grey Areas

Loss of rent cover usually applies after an insured peril such as fire or flood. It rarely applies when tenants are evicted due to illegal use. Some specialist policies extend to loss of rent following police closure or malicious damage, but this is not standard. Landlords should not assume rent will continue if a property becomes uninhabitable after illegal activity is discovered.

Practical Steps to Protect Yourself

• Carry out robust referencing and check ID thoroughly.
• Conduct regular inspections and keep records.
• Look out for red flags – covered windows, unusual condensation, tampered electrics, or complaints from neighbours.
• Ensure your policy explicitly includes malicious damage by tenants if you want protection.
• Notify your insurer if the property changes use (for example, becoming an HMO) to avoid non-disclosure issues.

Case Example

A landlord discovered their tenants had converted a three-bedroom semi into a cannabis farm. The electrics had been bypassed, causing fire risk, and the property was saturated with condensation and mould. The insurer initially declined the claim under the “illegal activity” exclusion. However, because the landlord provided quarterly inspection records showing no signs of the operation until the final month, the insurer paid for malicious damage repairs (but not lost rent). This highlights the importance of evidence and compliance.

Final Thoughts

Illegal activity in rental properties is a nightmare scenario, but landlords can protect themselves by choosing the right policy and maintaining strong inspection and referencing records. Do not assume standard landlord insurance will cover malicious damage or loss of rent after illegal activity – check your wording and speak to a broker who understands landlord risks.

Request your quote or call-back

The most efficient way to get a personal quote with the best price and cover possible is to call the team on 01832 770965 so we can focus on your enquiry when you are ready and sitting down with your portfolio details to hand.

Alternatively, you can use the form below to request one of our team to give you a call back.

/* “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_9′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_9′).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_9′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).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_9′).val();gformInitSpinner( 9, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [9, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_9′] = 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_9′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [9]);window[‘gf_submitting_9′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_9′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_9′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “9”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_9″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_9″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_9″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 9, 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(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

Publication date: Tuesday 23 December 2025

The post Illegal Activity by Tenants – Are You Covered? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Illegal Activity by Tenants – Are You Covered?

Fewer renters moving as section 21 notices decrease – Generation Rent

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Fewer renters moving as section 21 notices decrease – Generation Rent

A new Generation Rent survey reveals a decline in Section 21 notices and a drop in rent increases.

In a poll of 711 renters about the upcoming Renters’ Rights Act, despite a drop in Section 21 notices, the number of Section 8 notices has risen.

The survey comes ahead of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026.

Decline in Section 21 notices

According to the survey, the proportion of people having to move has fallen since 2024, which Generation Rent say is a result of a decline in Section 21 notices.

In the survey, the tenant group claim former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s decision to cut the higher rate of capital gains tax from 28% to 24% in the Spring Budget 2024 “led to the receding of a spike in evictions following the tax cut for landlords, meaning fewer have been selling up this year. It may also be due to fewer landlords evicting to raise the rent, because rents on new tenancies haven’t been rising as quickly this year.”

In this year’s Autumn Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves raised tax rates on dividends, property, and savings income by 2 percentage points.

Elsewhere, the survey reveals that the proportion of renters being served a Section 8 eviction notice has increased.

The tenant group claim this could be due to rising rent arrears caused by the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) being frozen.

Generation Rent predict that, with the upcoming Renters’ Rights Act, eviction trends will change, with the number of eviction notices expected to fall once Section 21 is abolished.

The survey says: “We should see a further fall in these numbers after May 2026, and Section 8 should become the only game in town for landlords who want to evict tenants.

“Along with Section 21 going, there will be no fixed terms, so no moment of anxiety that might prompt renters to move out if they can’t commit for another year, and landlords will not be able to ask a tenant to leave without a formal Section 8 notice, so these reports should decline as well.”

Rising market rent most common reason for rent increases

The survey also reveals the proportion of renters who had not moved in the past year and were asked to pay higher rent has not increased.

Despite nearly two-thirds (63%) of renters reported being asked for a rent increase. The size of rent increases appears to be falling, with 15% of respondents saying they were charged at least £100 more per month in the 12 months up to September 2025, compared to 22% in October 2024.

The most common reason given by landlords for a rent increase was rising market rents a further 4% attributed rent hikes to advice from letting agents. Generation Rent claim mortgage payments “have never been the main reason for rent increases”, despite evidence that more landlords are struggling to pay their mortgages than ever before.

Despite the Generation Rent survey finding that 27% of private renters did not feel confident asking their landlord to fix something that is the landlord’s responsibility, this means that 73% did feel confident.

A government survey also reveals that the majority of private renters have had a positive experience in the private rented sector, with satisfaction higher for landlords (70%) than for property management agencies (62%).

The full Generation Rent can be viewed by clicking here.

The post Fewer renters moving as section 21 notices decrease – Generation Rent appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Fewer renters moving as section 21 notices decrease – Generation Rent

Rent in advance – why you shouldn’t accept it?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Rent in advance – why you shouldn’t accept it?

We all know that the prohibition of rent in advance is going to make life really hard for tenants who, for whatever reason, can’t pass normal referencing and until now would have paid rent up front to get the place they want. So it’s natural that people are looking for ways to get around this. I think that’s a really dangerous thing for landlords to get involved in, and in this note, I explain why.

Basically, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 controls when and how rent can be paid in advance, principally by making amendments to the Tenant Fees Act. (TFA).

For new assured periodic tenancies, the position is broadly as follows.

• Any “pre‑tenancy” rent payment (ie rent paid before the tenancy agreement has been entered into by both parties) is now a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act.
• Landlords and agents must not “invite or encourage” a tenant, guarantor or other “relevant person” to make such a pre‑tenancy rent payment, and must not accept it if it is offered.
• The only lawful pre‑tenancy payments remain the holding deposit and the tenancy deposit, within the existing TFA caps; “initial rent” can only be taken in a short “permitted pre‑tenancy period” once the tenancy has been entered into.
• Any requirement in a new tenancy agreement that the tenant pays rent in advance (for example more than one month at a time, or before the first day of a rental period) is unenforceable.

Existing tenancies in place when the new regime starts can continue to operate on their current advance‑rent arrangements (eg 6‑monthly in advance).

One of the suggested avoidance routes is the payment of a lump sum rent in advance to a third party who will hold it in escrow, which basically means they hold it on trust with an explicit instruction to release it when certain conditions are met.

So the lump sum rent would be paid to an agent or a solicitor, someone like that, with instructions to release it in tranches, usually monthly, as each rent payment date comes up.

But the RRA is drafted with explicit anti‑avoidance language so that a landlord or agent cannot do indirectly, via a third party or escrow arrangement, what they are forbidden to do directly.

The prohibition applies to accepting a prohibited pre‑tenancy rent payment “from a tenant, guarantor or any other relevant person”. I know guidance isn’t supposed to have the force of law but in practice it does and it makes clear that paying rent to a third party (for example, an agent, an associate, or an escrow service) with instructions to release it to the landlord on rent‑due dates will still be treated as a prohibited pre‑tenancy rent payment if the money is rent and is paid before the tenancy is entered into or in excess of the permitted period/amount.

If a lump sum is not clearly rent for identified periods, there is a risk it is characterised as a tenancy deposit; any amount held as security above five weeks’ rent would then breach paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act.

In short, routing rent via escrow or a third party before the tenancy is properly in force, or in an amount or timing that is not permitted, is treated as an unlawful attempt to circumvent the statutory restrictions.

As you might expect, given the government’s anti-landlord mindset, there are severe penalties for breach of these rules. Two types of penalty regime interact here: the TFA regime for prohibited payments and the general RRA civil‑penalty framework.

• A prohibited pre‑tenancy rent payment under the TFA can attract a civil penalty from the local authority of up to £5,000 for a first breach, rising to up to £30,000 for a further breach within five years, as an alternative to prosecution. So let’s assume your tenant sets up escrow payments and these start running. At some point you fall out with your tenant and they go to the local authority. If you’ve accepted 6 monthly payments from escrow then that’s you saddled with a £30,000 fine .
• Under the wider RRA enforcement framework, local authorities can impose civil penalties up to £7,000 for first or minor non‑compliance and up to £40,000 for serious or repeat non‑compliance, with the option in serious/repeated cases of criminal prosecution carrying an unlimited fine.
• Tenants and the local authority can also seek a rent repayment order for continuing or repeated breaches where the landlord fails to remedy the breach (for example, by not promptly returning a prohibited rent payment).

Always remember, local authorities now have a statutory duty (not just a power) to enforce “landlord legislation”, and they have a direct financial incentive to find breaches and enforce the payment of penalties because they will keep the cash.

Still fancy trying this way of getting rent in advance payments from tenants?

I don’t.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asking-for-rent-in-advance-guidance-for-local-authorities/asking-for-rent-in-advance-guidance-for-local-authorities

Michael

The post Rent in advance – why you shouldn’t accept it? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Rent in advance – why you shouldn’t accept it?

Shelter blames rising rents and housing benefit freeze for driving homelessness

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Shelter blames rising rents and housing benefit freeze for driving homelessness

Shelter claims “unaffordable private rents and the freeze on housing benefit” are pushing more people into temporary accommodation.

According to the housing charity, 382,618 people are now homeless, including 350,480 people homeless in temporary accommodation, the highest since records began.

The news comes as the government have pledged to prevent homelessness by the end of this Parliament through its new homelessness strategy.

Newham is the local authority with the highest rate of homelessness in the country

The housing charity claims one in every 153 people in England are now experiencing homelessness, with households spending an average of nearly three years in temporary accommodation.

In the North West, the number of people recorded as homeless has grown by 15% in the last year, and in Yorkshire and the Humber and the West Midlands it has risen by 11%.

Newham is the local authority with the highest rate of homelessness in the country, with 1 in 18 people homeless.

Outside of London, Slough is the worst-affected local authority, with 1 in 43 people homeless, followed by Hastings with 1 in 60 homeless and Manchester and Birmingham, where 1 in every 61 people are homeless.

Unaffordable private rents are pushing more people into homelessness

In a press release, Shelter blames rising rents and the freeze on local housing allowance (LHA) as trapping people in temporary accommodation.

The press release says: “The dire shortage of social homes, unaffordable private rents and the freeze on housing benefit are pushing more people into homelessness and trapping them there.”

Sarah Elliott, chief executive officer at Shelter, is urging the government to unfreeze LHA rates

She said: “It’s unthinkable that as winter sets in, more than 382,000 people are without a safe place to call home. Thousands of people are bracing themselves for their next freezing night on the street, while over 84,000 families are facing up to the grim reality of spending Christmas in damaging temporary accommodation.

“Every day at Shelter, we hear from parents who are terrified of waiting out another winter in appalling temporary accommodation. Cut off from family and friends in a bleak emergency B&B that’s miles away, they watch as their children’s breath hangs in the air and mould climbs the walls.

“We urge the government to help the families who are homeless right now by ending the freeze on housing benefit. This would immediately lift thousands of children out of temporary accommodation and into a home. While we campaign for change, our frontline services will continue providing direct support to those facing homelessness this winter and beyond.”

The post Shelter blames rising rents and housing benefit freeze for driving homelessness appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Shelter blames rising rents and housing benefit freeze for driving homelessness

Buy-To-Let Mortgages and Personal Guarantees – What You Need to Know

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Buy-To-Let Mortgages and Personal Guarantees – What You Need to Know

Most landlords using limited companies to borrow in 2025 will encounter the requirement to sign a personal guarantee (PG). Even though the borrowing is through a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), lenders want additional security that ties directors and shareholders personally to the loan. For landlords, understanding how PGs work – and the risks involved – is vital before signing on the dotted line.

What Is a Personal Guarantee?

A personal guarantee is a legal commitment by an individual to repay a loan if the borrowing company defaults. In practice, this means that even if the property company is the borrower, the lender can pursue the directors or guarantors personally if the company fails to meet obligations.

Personal guarantees usually cover the full amount of the borrowing plus interest and costs. They are a standard feature of almost all limited company buy-to-let mortgages.

Why Do Lenders Require Personal Guarantees?

• Risk mitigation – PGs give lenders an extra safety net beyond the property itself.
• Alignment of interests – lenders want to ensure directors remain personally invested in the success of the venture.
• Regulatory caution – lenders are expected to apply rigorous underwriting to buy-to-let, especially after the PRA rules of 2017.

Without PGs, many lenders would simply refuse to lend to SPVs, which would dramatically reduce financing options for landlords.

Risks for Landlords

By signing a PG, you extend your liability beyond the company structure. Risks include:

• Personal assets at risk – lenders can pursue guarantors’ personal wealth if the company defaults.
• Joint guarantees – where multiple directors sign, liability is often “joint and several”, meaning the lender can pursue one guarantor for the full amount.
• Inheritance implications – PG obligations can pass to estates, complicating succession planning.
• Difficulty exiting – once signed, PGs remain in force until the loan is repaid or refinanced.

Case Study: PG Liability in Practice

Scenario: Two directors borrowed £1m through an SPV. Both signed PGs. When the company defaulted, the lender pursued Director A for the full amount, even though Director B had greater personal wealth.

Outcome: Director A was forced to sell personal assets before later recovering contributions from Director B through legal action. This highlighted the risk of joint and several liability.

Can You Limit PG Exposure?

While most buy-to-let lenders require full PGs, some limited mitigations are possible:

• PG caps – a small number of lenders allow capped guarantees, usually in commercial rather than buy-to-let finance.
• Insurance – specialist PG insurance exists, though premiums can be high and cover is not always comprehensive.
• Negotiation – in rare cases, strong borrowers may negotiate partial PGs, but this is unusual in 2025.

In practice, landlords should assume PGs are unavoidable for SPV borrowing and plan accordingly.

Practical Tips for Landlords

• Always read the PG document carefully and take legal advice before signing.
• Ensure all directors and shareholders understand their obligations under joint and several liability.
• Maintain liquidity buffers to reduce the risk of default.
• Consider life cover written into trust to mitigate the risk of PG liability passing to heirs.
• Factor PG obligations into your wider succession and estate planning.

Final Thoughts

Personal guarantees are a fact of life for most landlords borrowing through limited companies in 2025. They give lenders confidence but increase landlord risk. The best approach is to understand the obligations fully, structure borrowing sensibly, and plan personal finances to manage potential exposure.

Speak to Our Sponsor

Our sponsor helps landlords understand PG obligations, explore insurance options where available, and structure portfolios to minimise personal risk while maintaining borrowing power.

/* “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_579′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_579′).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_579′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_579′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_579′).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_579′).val();gformInitSpinner( 579, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [579, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_579′] = 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_579′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [579]);window[‘gf_submitting_579′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_579′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_579′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “579”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_579″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_579″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_579″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 579, 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(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

Publication date: Monday, 29 December 2025

The post Buy-To-Let Mortgages and Personal Guarantees – What You Need to Know appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Buy-To-Let Mortgages and Personal Guarantees – What You Need to Know

Why rushed leasehold reform could destabilise the housing market

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Why rushed leasehold reform could destabilise the housing market

Reform of the leasehold system is long overdue. It’s broadly agreed that the current model, with its layers of complexity and its potential for abuse, has required reform for some time. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (LAFRA), which was enacted in a rush under the last government, represents a major step towards fairer ownership structures.

It includes provisions to reduce lease extension and freehold purchase premiums for leaseholders, greater transparency on service charges and accounts as well as enabling more buildings to qualify for the Right to Manage (RTM).

However, save for the RTM changes, many provisions are yet to come into force and may indeed change as we await further legislation. This includes the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill which is expected imminently. We certainly do not want this to be rushed as was the case with LAFRA, which created much uncertainty in the market particularly amongst leaseholders (ironically the very group it seeks to assist).

Politicians’ promises (many of which have been diluted), unimplemented legislation and awaited further legislation has caused ructions throughout the sector that currently underpins over 5 million homes, not only affecting leaseholders and freeholders but also developers, lenders and managing agents.

The value of stability

Leasehold ownership accounts for around 20% of England’s housing stock and in London that figure rises to more than 50%. It encompasses not just privately owned flats but shared ownership homes, retirement developments and mixed-use schemes where complex management structures are essential. This is not a niche tenure but a mainstream form of home ownership which has been embedded in our legal and financial systems for centuries.

For all its faults, the current leasehold system allows leaseholders, subject to qualification, to acquire the freehold of their buildings collectively and take over the management through a no-fault process: something commonhold has yet to achieve at scale. That framework gives lenders confidence, sets out responsibilities for maintenance and provides the mechanism through which large multi-occupancy buildings can function safely. Reforming it requires consideration and continued consultation.

Moreover, it is absolutely agreed that the current regime is riddled with ambiguity and legal jargon, meaning that proper guidance and legal advice is often needed. However, provided leaseholders are fully informed and supported many buildings run well and leaseholders are happy. We must move away from rushed legislation.

Lessons from the LAFRA

The LAFRA itself demonstrates the tension between good intentions and practical reality. The legislation has been appreciated in principle, but many of its provisions remain unimplemented or require secondary legislation to become effective. This has created challenges in the sector for professionals when advising clients. The picture is still blurry.

The Act’s complexity means that conveyancers, valuers and managing agents are already having to navigate a transitional landscape. The risk is that before this new framework has bedded in, further reform could layer uncertainty on top of uncertainty. The next phase must therefore be about consolidation and consultation, not just another wave of change.

Commonhold’s promise and practicalities

The government’s renewed enthusiasm for commonhold is understandable. It promises a simpler, fairer system of ownership in which flat owners control their building collectively rather than holding time-limited leases from an external freeholder. Many practitioners, including members of ALEP, welcome this in principle. Indeed, it is a structure which has worked in many other countries for many years.

However, as ALEP and others have consistently emphasised, commonhold is not yet ready to replace leasehold wholesale. The model requires extensive legal, financial and cultural adaptation. Mortgage lenders remain cautious, developers have little incentive to adopt it, and most managing agents are more familiar with leasehold processes. Without addressing these structural issues, a rapid shift towards commonhold could stall housing delivery and undermine confidence across the market.

Therefore, reform should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. The government must test commonhold in new developments, provide robust guidance for lenders and set realistic timescales for transition. Only through incremental progress can confidence grow organically rather than by imposition.

Reform through collaboration

The solution lies not in halting reform but in managing it responsibly. Government, legal professionals, surveyors, lenders and leaseholders must work together to ensure that the next phase is both fair and functional.

Organisations such as ALEP are well placed to contribute, bringing together practitioners who work within the leasehold system at every stage including valuation, litigation and conveyancing.

A genuinely collaborative process could also help soften the process. Otherwise, leasehold reform risks becoming a ‘them and us’ landscape which is not necessarily healthy or helpful. Leasehold reform has too often been reduced to headlines about exploitation or profiteering, obscuring the reality that most ownership structures function effectively.

By focusing on evidence rather than ideology, policymakers can target the specific problems that remain, such as excessive service charges, opaque management, exploitative leases, without undermining the many developments where leasehold works well.

Avoiding unintended consequences

From a property investment point of view, the financial implications of poorly managed reform, the media frenzy and unnecessary scaremongering in some cases are significant. Uncertainty around valuation, proposed capping of ground rents for valuation purposes, and commonhold are impacting the market. We are yet to see a huge take up from developers to consider commonhold until the landscape is much clearer.

Getting reform right

Leasehold reform is absolutely necessary and welcome. The challenge is to balance ambition with realism. A modern, fair and transparent system is achievable, but only if changes are supported by consultation, education and clear regulation.

Professionals share the government’s desire to make home ownership simpler and fairer, but as was demonstrated at ALEP’s annual conference in October, we believe en masse that effective reform cannot be achieved through haste. The industry must be given the time and clarity to adapt, and leaseholders deserve a system that works in practice as well as in principle.

Reform done well can restore trust and strengthen the market and achieve the growth that the government aspires too. But done badly, reform could destabilise it for years.

Shabnam Ali-Khan is a Partner at Russell-Cooke and a member of ALEP (Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners).

The post Why rushed leasehold reform could destabilise the housing market appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why rushed leasehold reform could destabilise the housing market