Income tax set to rise to up to 47% in 2027: Here’s how to take action before the end of the year
Property118

Income tax set to rise to up to 47% in 2027: Here’s how to take action before the end of the year
With Christmas just around the corner, it’s understandable that many of us are ready to close up shop and leave today’s problems until the New Year.
But with just 2 weeks to go, and the news that there might be many more hits to landlords following the Renters’ Rights Act in May, there’s still plenty of time to act to make sure you’re all set to down tools knowing you did everything you could to get in the best position for the changes next year.
Why? As Adrian Moloney from The Intermediary reports, if you thought the Renters’ Rights Act was the last blow for landlords, enter income tax rises. “From April 2027, the property basic rate will be 22%, the property higher rate will be 42%, and the property additional rate will be 47%” he writes, “the impact of these increases, together with the changes enacted through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, are on the back of previous increases in Stamp Duty and restriction of mortgage interest relief.
This could lead to further pressure on both existing and, potentially, new landlords.” The silver lining is that this early warning allows us to be fully prepared.
With thousands of landlords looking to sell before May 2026, and many considering downsizing to more manageable portfolio sizes, this is a clear signal that it’ll pay to act sooner rather than later if you’re thinking of selling.
So what can landlords do in the 2 weeks before Christmas? The simple answer is: get ahead of the curve and start your selling process now.
Landlord Sales Agency, known for being the top UK exit portfolio company is providing that exact solution.
No matter what property and what condition, we have a private database of over 30,000 buyers, the top property buying companies, private funds and first time buyers that we market your properties to, generate a bidding war that pushes your properties to the highest prices. What’s more, we manage the entire process for you.
This isn’t about selling before Christmas, it’s about getting your properties on the market now, so while you’re relaxing over the holidays, we’re doing the hard work to get your properties sold.
We have a 100% success rate in selling tenanted buy-to-let houses and a solid network of solicitors who can help with evictions, paying tenants to move out, or raising rents to make properties more appealing to buyers.
All our properties sell on average in just 28 days for up to 90% market value and for that we cover all the costs and take away all the hassle that comes with selling the portfolio. We’re also completely transparent, so you know exactly what we’re making.
With so many changes affecting landlords on the horizon, it pays to act fast.
Landlords who contact us today, can start the ball rolling, meaning come January you’ll already be ahead of the game when it comes to your properties being sold.
/* “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)}});
/* ]]> */
Contact Landlord Sales Agency
/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_515′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_515′).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_515′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_515′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_515′).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_515′).val();gformInitSpinner( 515, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [515, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_515′] = 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_515′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [515]);window[‘gf_submitting_515′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_515′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_515′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “515”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_515″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_515″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_515″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 515, 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 Income tax set to rise to up to 47% in 2027: Here’s how to take action before the end of the year appeared first on Property118.
View Full Article: Income tax set to rise to up to 47% in 2027: Here’s how to take action before the end of the year
Landlords face fines of £3,000 to £35,000 under new government guidance
Property118

Landlords face fines of £3,000 to £35,000 under new government guidance
The government has released new civil penalty tables under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and the figures are outrageous. The official guidance, published this week on GOV.UK, sets out a scale of fines that start at £3,000 and climb to £35,000 for the most serious breaches. Many of these offences were previously treated as routine compliance matters. They now come with penalties that will feel closer to corporate regulation than traditional housing enforcement.
The largest penalties stand out immediately. A breach of a banning order carries a starting figure of £35,000. Using a possession ground that the landlord “knew or should have known” could not be met attracts a penalty of £30,000. Reletting a property during a no-let period is marked at £25,000. Even administrative failures, such as entering a selective licensing area without the correct licence, are set at £12,000.
These numbers land at a time when operating margins have already been eroded by increased regulatory overhead. The message is hard to miss. Compliance is no longer a procedural expectation, it is becoming a major financial risk factor. That change will shape the decisions of every landlord, whether they own one property or several hundred.
A comparison with other UK penalty regimes is also revealing. Many workplace safety offences attract lower penalties than the amounts now set for common licensing breaches. A failure to meet gas safety obligations in a rental property can trigger fines larger than penalties issued to companies that mishandle hazardous equipment. Even misleading rent advertisements carry a penalty of £4,000, which is more severe than fines issued for a range of trading offences in small businesses.
Landlords will question the fairness of these discrepancies. A documentary oversight or a misfiled possession claim may now result in a penalty that exceeds fines levied against regulated businesses in sectors with far higher operational risks. That tension will amplify political and industry debate, because the contrast is difficult to ignore once the figures are placed side by side.
Local authorities are likely to respond quickly. The guidance allows councils to retain revenue from civil penalties to support further enforcement activity. This creates a self-funding model that did not exist with the same clarity before. Enforcement teams that once struggled with budget constraints may now be encouraged to act more frequently and more assertively. Councils will focus on licensing, documentation, advertising and property condition, because these areas now offer significant financial return.
Lenders will take notice as well. A single penalty of £20,000 or more can alter the affordability profile of a portfolio. Breaches involving possession grounds will catch particular attention, because lenders rely on orderly tenancies to control arrears risk. Insurers will likely tighten underwriting for landlords who self-manage or operate in older properties, especially where documentation or licensing may be inconsistent.
Letting agents will face new pressures. The guidance implies shared responsibility in several areas, and agents who manage documentation or advertising on behalf of landlords could be scrutinised more closely. This will push agencies to adopt stricter internal controls, which may in turn increase costs for landlords who rely on full management services.
Tenants will experience the changes too. Councils will intervene earlier in disputes. Penalties allow enforcement without court delays, which means issues around licensing or documentation are likely to escalate more quickly than before. Some tenants will welcome the added oversight. Others may find that the heightened rules lead landlords to withdraw from riskier areas of the market.
Professional advisers will warn landlords to treat possession decisions with far more caution. The £30,000 penalty for relying on the wrong ground introduces a subjective test that invites argument over what a landlord “should have known”. That point alone will generate litigation, appeals and case law in the years ahead.
The guidance signals a tougher era. It reflects a political intention to make enforcement more visible and more costly. For landlords, it introduces a level of regulatory exposure that feels disproportionate when placed alongside penalties used in other sectors.
This is the landscape now set before the private rented sector. Success will belong to those who tighten their compliance processes, document every decision and treat governance as a central part of property management. The figures published this week send a clear warning. Mistakes will carry serious consequences, and the financial risks of non-compliance have never been higher.
| Offence | Civil penalty |
|---|---|
| Unlawful eviction and harassment (s1(2) and (3)) | £35,000 |
Housing Act 1988 breaches and offences
| Breach | Civil penalty |
|---|---|
| Attempting to let the property for a fixed term (s16E(1)(a)) | £4,000 |
| Attempting to end the tenancy by service of a notice to quit (s16E(1)(b)) | £6,000 |
| Attempting to end the tenancy orally, or require that it is ended orally (s16E(1)(c)) | £6,000 |
| Serving a possession notice that attempts to end the tenancy outside of the prescribed section 8 process (s16E(1)(d)) | £6,000 |
| Relying on a ground where the person does not reasonably believe that the landlord is/will be able to obtain possession (s16I(1)(e)) | £6,000 |
| Failing to provide a tenant with prior notice that a ground which requires it may be used (s16E(1)(f)) | £3,000 |
| Failing to issue a written statement of terms within 28 days of an assured tenancy coming into existence (s16D) | £4,000 |
| Failing to provide an existing tenant with prescribed information about changes made by the Renters’ Rights Act (paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025) | £4,000 |
| Offence | Civil penalty |
|---|---|
| Relying on a ground knowing the landlord would not be able to obtain possession or being reckless as to whether they would (s16J(1)) | £30,000 |
| Reletting or remarketing a property within the 12 month no-let period after using the moving or selling grounds (s16J(2)) | £25,000 |
| Continuing breach, or repeat breach committed within 5 years of receiving a penalty for first breach (s16J(3) and (4)) | Double the starting level for the two constituent breaches added together |
Housing Act 2004 Offences
| Offence | Civil penalty |
|---|---|
| Failure to comply with an improvement notice (s.30(1)) | £25,000 |
| Mandatory HMO unlicensed (s.72(1)) | £17,000 |
| Additional HMO unlicensed (s72 (1)) | £17,000 |
| Knowingly permitting over-occupation of an HMO (s.72(2)) | £20,000 |
| Property subject to selective licensing unlicensed (s.95(1)) | £12,000 |
| Failure to comply with an overcrowding notice (s.139(7)) | £20,000 |
| Breach of HMO management regulations (SI 2006/372 and SI 2007/1903 (in respect of s257 HMOs) made under s234(1)) | |
| Failure to provide information to the occupier (regulation 3) | £3,000 |
| Failure to take safety measures (regulation 4) | £20,000 |
| Failure to maintain water supply and drainage (regulation 5) | £10,000 |
| Failure to supply and maintain gas and electricity or supply gas safety certificate (regulation 6) | £12,000 |
| Failure to maintain common parts (regulation 7) | £7,000 |
| Failure to maintain living accommodation (regulation 8) | £7,000 |
| Failure to provide adequate waste disposal facilities (regulation 9) | £7,000 |
No starting point for civil penalties for breaches of licensing conditions under sections 72(3) and 95(2) of the Housing Act 2004 are set out in this guidance, as those conditions may vary substantially between local authorities. Local housing authorities will need to determine and publish their own starting levels for civil penalties for these offences.
Housing and Planning Act 2016 Offences
| Offence | Civil penalty |
|---|---|
| Breach of a banning order (s.21(1)) | £35,000 |
Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Breaches
| Breach | Civil penalty |
|---|---|
| Discrimination against those on benefits or with children in the lettings process (s.33 and s.34) | £6,000 |
| Failure to specify proposed rent within a written advertisement or offer (s.56(2)) | £3,000 |
| Inviting, encouraging or accepting any offer of rent greater than the advertised rate (s.56(3)) | £4,000 |
The post Landlords face fines of £3,000 to £35,000 under new government guidance appeared first on Property118.
View Full Article: Landlords face fines of £3,000 to £35,000 under new government guidance
Deposit disputes remain rare despite rising rents – TDS
Property118

Deposit disputes remain rare despite rising rents – TDS
Formal disputes over tenancy deposits continue to affect only a small fraction of the private rented sector, even as deposit values and rents climb, the TDS Group has revealed.
Its Statistical Briefing 2025 shows that just 1% of protected deposits in England and Wales were subject to formal adjudication during 2024/25.
A total of 46,950 cases were handled, up slightly from 0.91% the previous year but in line with a long-running pattern of disputes accounting for around one in every hundred tenancies.
Cleaning remains the most frequent trigger for disagreements, featuring in 54% of cases.
Damage followed closely at 49%, with redecoration the cause in 31%, while gardening accounted for 14% of disputes and rent arrears appeared in 10%.
99% of tenancies don’t end in dispute
Steve Harriott, the chief executive of TDS Group, said: “As rents and deposits continue to rise, the role of fair and transparent deposit protection has never been more important.
“It is encouraging that more than 99% of tenancies still end without a formal dispute, demonstrating the professionalism of agents and the cooperation of tenants across the sector.
“Where disputes do arise, our free, impartial adjudication service ensures that issues can be resolved quickly and fairly, without the need for court involvement.”
He added: “The findings also remind us that cleaning and damage remain the main sources of disagreement at the end of a tenancy, reinforcing the importance of detailed inventories and clear expectations from the outset.”
Protected deposits
The number of protected deposits in England and Wales rose to 4,706,470, while their combined value increased by about 6% to £5.53 billion.
Average deposits reached £1,175, the highest level recorded, reflecting annual rent rises of 7.9% in England and 8.8% in Wales to March 2025.
Custodial schemes now hold the majority of deposits by volume in England and Wales, representing 54.41% of all protected sums.
Insurance-backed protection still accounts for a larger share by value at 54.65%.
More disputes in Scotland
Scotland continues to record a higher dispute rate than elsewhere in the UK and during 2024/25, 5,951 disputes were raised, equivalent to 2.44% of protected deposits.
Although the total number of protected deposits slipped slightly to 243,283, their overall value increased to £215.5 million.
Cleaning was also the main issue in 58% of Scottish disputes, damage in 39% and redecoration in 25%.
Private rents north of the border rose by 5.7% over the year.
Lowest level of tenancy disputes
Northern Ireland again posted the lowest level of formal disagreement with only 358 disputes being recorded in 2024/25.
That represents 0.49% of protected deposits and marking a drop from the previous year.
The total number of protected deposits increased to 72,790, with an average value of £709.50.
Again, leaning and damage remained the most common causes.
The full Statistical Briefing 2025 is available to download for free from the TDS website.
The post Deposit disputes remain rare despite rising rents – TDS appeared first on Property118.
View Full Article: Deposit disputes remain rare despite rising rents – TDS
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (12,394)
Archives
- December 2025 (60)
- August 2025 (51)
- July 2025 (51)
- June 2025 (49)
- May 2025 (50)
- April 2025 (48)
- March 2025 (54)
- February 2025 (51)
- January 2025 (52)
- December 2024 (55)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- No final decision on EPC requirements for short-term holiday lets
- Government insists selective licensing and PRS Database serve different purposes
- Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation – Why Insurers Decline Claims
- Why leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations must be enacted
- The continuing Renters’ Rights Act nightmare – what happens if the first month’s rent isn’t paid?

admin