Buy-To-Let Mortgages for First-Time Landlords

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Buy-To-Let Mortgages for First-Time Landlords

Getting started in property investment can feel daunting, particularly in today’s mortgage market. First-time landlords face stricter criteria, larger deposit requirements and higher scrutiny from lenders compared with experienced investors. But with preparation and the right guidance, it is still possible to secure competitive finance and start building a rental portfolio in 2025.

Who Counts as a First-Time Landlord?

A first-time landlord is someone buying their first rental property. Some lenders also class you as a first-time landlord if you have not previously let property, even if you own your own home. A smaller number may also combine this with “first-time buyer” criteria, where you do not yet own any property at all. These factors can restrict product choice.

What Lenders Look For

Most lenders want reassurance that first-time landlords can manage the responsibilities of letting property. Typical requirements include:

• Larger deposits – usually 25% or more of the property value.
• Minimum income – often £25,000+ from employment or self-employment, to demonstrate financial stability.
• Clean credit history – no recent defaults, CCJs or missed payments.
• Rental income affordability – the property must meet 125%–145% coverage of mortgage interest at a stress-tested rate.

Deposit and Loan-to-Value Rules

While experienced landlords may occasionally access products up to 80% LTV, most first-time landlord mortgages are capped at 75% LTV. This means a £200,000 property would require a deposit of at least £50,000, plus stamp duty, legal fees and a contingency fund.

Worked Example: Affordability Test for a First-Time Landlord

Scenario: Property value £180,000. Loan £135,000 (75% LTV). Product rate 5.5% fixed. Annual interest £7,425 (£618.75 monthly).

At 145% coverage: Rent must be at least £10,766 per year (£897 per month).
At 125% coverage: Rent must be at least £9,281 per year (£773 per month).

If rent is £850 per month, the application would pass at 125% but fail at 145%. This shows the importance of choosing the right lender.

Common Pitfalls for New Landlords

• Overestimating rental income – valuers may take a cautious view, reducing affordability.
• Underestimating costs – repairs, voids, management fees and compliance costs all eat into returns.
• Choosing the wrong property – low-yield flats in city centres often fail affordability tests for first-time landlords.
• Lack of preparation – missing payslips, ID documents or tenancy projections delay applications.

Tips for First-Time Landlords Applying in 2025

• Save a deposit of at least 25% and budget extra for costs.
• Choose a property with strong rental yield to make affordability easier.
• Keep your credit file clean and limit personal debt.
• Consider using a broker with access to lenders open to first-time landlords.
• Have all documents ready – proof of income, bank statements and ID.

Case Study: A Successful First Application

Scenario: A first-time landlord earning £40,000 a year in employment applied for a buy-to-let mortgage on a two-bed terrace at £150,000.

Solution: With a £40,000 deposit and £110,000 loan, the lender applied a 125% coverage rule. Rent of £750 per month passed the stress test comfortably.

Outcome: The landlord secured a five-year fixed mortgage, gaining stable payments and successfully entering the rental market.

Final Thoughts

First-time landlords face stricter hurdles, but competitive mortgages are still available in 2025. The key is preparation: strong deposits, realistic rental assumptions and clean financial records. With the right property and lender match, becoming a landlord is achievable even in a tougher mortgage market.

Speak to Our Sponsor

Our sponsor works daily with first-time landlords, helping them prepare applications, choose suitable lenders and enter the buy-to-let market with confidence.

/* “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, 15 December 2025

The post Buy-To-Let Mortgages for First-Time Landlords appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Buy-To-Let Mortgages for First-Time Landlords

Housing market shows signs of stability as rental arrears drop

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Housing market shows signs of stability as rental arrears drop

Rental arrears are at their lowest level since 2022 as rent prices remain largely unchanged, according to a new report.

Propertymark’s Housing Insight report reveals that affordability is improving in parts of the rental market as tenant demand has eased.

Propertymark member agents also report that, while rental prices are fluctuating in some areas, there is a degree of stability, with 52% of agents saying rents have generally remained static.

Growing stability and resilience within the rental sector

According to the report, the magnitude of member agents reporting problems with arrears positively decreased to 1.7%, the lowest since 2022.

More than half of Propertymark agents (52%) reported rents have remained generally static and 30% have reported an overall fall.

The report also reveals a dip in tenant demand with the average number of registrations per member branch dropped significantly to an average of 61.

Nathan Emerson, chief executive of Propertymark, said the fall in rental arrears shows the rental market is strengthening.

He said: “On the lettings side, it is particularly positive to see arrears reported at their lowest level since October 2022. This signals growing stability and resilience within the rental sector, even against a backdrop of long-term supply challenges.

“With more than half of agents reporting static rents and nearly a third observing modest declines, the data suggests the rental market may be beginning to find a more sustainable balance. Overall, these trends point to a market that is settling, strengthening, and gradually moving into a more predictable rhythm, which is welcome news for agents, landlords, and consumers alike.”

Overall direction is encouraging

Phil Spencer, founder of Move iQ, said the rental arrears drop is welcome news.

He said: “For renters, the reduction in arrears and the fact that most agents are seeing rents remain static, or even fall, will be particularly welcome.

“After several years of rapid increases, this shift offers a bit of breathing space and suggests affordability is improving in parts of the market.

“While challenges remain, the overall direction is encouraging. Consumers navigating the market today can do so with a little more confidence, knowing that conditions are stabilising and that opportunities exist for those prepared to act.”

Elsewhere, the report shows that in the residential sales market, the average number of sales agreed per member branch saw a slight increase in October 2025, reaching 7.8, while stock levels also rose, with an average of 45 properties for sale at each branch.

The post Housing market shows signs of stability as rental arrears drop appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Housing market shows signs of stability as rental arrears drop

When Britain last faced a housing crisis, lenders became mega-landlords. The same pattern could emerge again

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

When Britain last faced a housing crisis, lenders became mega-landlords. The same pattern could emerge again

Landlords often describe the current environment as hostile. That feeling is not irrational. The Renters’ Rights Act introduces penalties of £3,000 to £35,000, new banning order pathways, and a national database that can end a landlord’s career overnight. Councils retain the revenue from civil penalties, which changes the financial incentives behind enforcement.

What many landlords do not realise is that Britain has been here before, although under a different regulatory framework. During the late 1980s and early 1990s crash, tens of thousands of homes were repossessed. What happened next is rarely discussed today. Several lenders and building societies ended up operating very large residential rental portfolios. These portfolios were eventually transferred in bulk to institutional landlords.

The pattern was simple. Distress occurred, stock was aggregated, the properties were let for several years, and then sold in a single transaction to a fund or specialist investor.

There is no need for conspiracy. The system created the conditions, and the outcome followed.

Nationwide, Quality Street and the first corporate landlord experiments

In the late 1980s ministers were already holding up large private rental initiatives as the future of housing finance. During the Commons debate on the 1987 Housing Bill, the Housing Minister praised a new Nationwide Anglia project. The society had helped set up a company called Quality Street and committed £600 million of lending over five years, with an ambition to provide up to 40,000 privately let homes, starting in Glasgow and expanding to other cities. Source: Hansard

Quality Street did not remain an abstract proposal. Audit Scotland later recorded that the company commenced trading in 1988 under the Quality Street Ltd banner, with the explicit purpose of acquiring, developing and holding residential property for private letting. Nationwide Building Society acquired 75% of the equity in 1994 and moved to full ownership in 1998, at which point the business was renamed at.home nationwide limited. By that stage it owned over 2,200 units across about 100 developments in the UK and operated regional offices in the major cities. Source: Audit Scotland+1

In other words, a mainstream building society ended up running one of the largest single private rental portfolios in Britain, under a wholly owned subsidiary that began life as Quality Street and matured into at.home nationwide.

Repossessions, BES funds and temporary landlord businesses

The early 1990s crash produced a parallel story. As repossessions surged, lenders began to experiment with vehicles that would hold distressed stock in the rental market before selling in bulk.

In 1993 Bradford & Bingley announced a £50 million residential Business Expansion Scheme fund whose purpose was to buy repossessed homes, let them for around five years, then sell them on. Contemporary reporting made clear that this was a deliberate strategy to manage a backlog of distressed properties by using the private rented sector as a temporary home. Source: The Independent

The Independent’s personal finance coverage from the same period describes how residential BES companies were increasingly “turned to repossessions”. One article notes a £25 million Barclays-backed scheme that bought repossessed homes, rented them out and then planned to dispose of them, and explains that Abbey National used similar structures before selling portfolios on in blocks of more than 1,000 dwellings to professional landlords. Source: The Independent

These were not isolated curiosities. The Rugg review of the private rented sector calculates that 81,145 dwellings were acquired by residential BES companies between 1988/89 and 1993/94. Source: White Rose Research Online

The Chartered Institute of Taxation later summarised the same policy as having produced roughly 81,000 dwellings at a tax cost of about £1.7 billion, much of it tied to large, professionally managed portfolios rather than small amateur landlords. Source: A Social Democratic Future

Across these examples the pattern is consistent. Financial stress created supply, lenders and tax-advantaged vehicles aggregated that supply into sizeable rental portfolios, and those portfolios were eventually sold in single institutional transactions. There was no need for an explicit conspiracy. The structure of incentives, and the legal tools available at the time, made that outcome almost inevitable.

Why this history matters today

The Renters’ Rights Act changes the dynamics of the private rented sector. Penalties for procedural errors are not hypothetical, they are set out in government guidance. Councils keep the revenue from enforcement and their officers have statutory powers to issue penalties and to apply for banning orders. A landlord can be added to the national database even when the underlying matter is administrative in nature.

If, in the future, large numbers of small landlords were driven out by fines, bans or administrative pressure, Britain already has a historical blueprint for what happens next. The housing stock does not disappear, it changes hands.

In the early 1990s, it moved into vehicles backed by building societies and banks.

These vehicles then sold the properties in bulk to institutional landlords.

The mechanism required no conspiracy.

It arose naturally from financial pressure, regulatory incentives and market behaviour.

The present climate could theoretically create similar pressures. If council enforcement becomes aggressive or inconsistent, and if small landlords find themselves unable to shoulder the risk, the path of least resistance is a transfer of stock to institutions that can operate at scale.

If enforcement intensifies and landlords exit, who will own Britain’s rental stock?

History provides one answer.

It may not be the people who built the sector. It may be the institutions that are best positioned to acquire the housing in bulk when smaller operators can no longer absorb the risk.

This is not speculation, it is what happened last time.

An example of how the fire could start …

Consider this scenario …

Just suppose, post Renters’ Right Act becoming fully operational, a landlord has two different tenants apply to rent the same property.  Both are from different minority groups; otherwise, their applications are close to identical. Whichever applicant the landlord chooses, the other can call discrimination and go to the council.

Where does that leave the landlord?

Discrimination penalties now apply even when both applicants are suitable

If two applicants are equally qualified in terms of income, affordability, references, credit, and rental history … the landlord is still required to choose one.

Under the Renters’ Rights Act penalty framework, the unselected applicant could claim indirect discrimination, discriminatory treatment during the selection process, and discriminatory motivation, even without hard evidence.

This pushes landlords into a position where the burden of proof shifts to them, not the complainant.

Councils are empowered and incentivised to enforce

The official guidance gives enforcement officers wide discretion. Councils also retain the revenue from penalties, which means complaints are more likely to be investigated, borderline cases are more likely to attract penalties, and enforcement officers may rely on inference where evidence is limited

If the enforcement officer agrees with the complainant’s allegation, the landlord could face a civil penalty up to £6,000 (discrimination), reputational damage, increased scrutiny of future applications, and heightened risk of being targeted with follow-up inspections or broader compliance reviews.

The landlord’s defence becomes extremely fragile

What, realistically, can the landlord prove?

They can produce financial checks, referencing documents, application timelines, and internal notes.

However, these do not eliminate the possibility of a discrimination finding, because the key legal question is this …

“Did the landlord’s decision treat one applicant less favourably on a protected basis?”

If two applicants are equally suitable, any distinguishing factor the landlord uses to choose between them could be interpreted negatively.

This is exactly why many landlords now feel the enforcement regime is designed so that they cannot practically defend themselves.

The landlord’s position if the penalty is issued

If a £6,000 discrimination penalty is served, the landlord faces three options:

a) Pay the penalty

This can be seen as an admission, even if the landlord disputes the allegation.

b) Make written representations

Local authorities may maintain the penalty unless overwhelming evidence disproves discrimination.

c) Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal

This is costly, slow and uncertain. The landlord risks legal costs, reputational damage, and potential increases in other compliance scrutiny.

A single complaint could therefore trigger a cascade of regulatory exposure.

The wider implications

This scenario illustrates the problem the sector keeps raising:

1. A landlord can comply fully with the law and still be penalised.
2. Selection requires choosing one applicant and rejecting another.
3. Rejection can now lead directly to a discrimination complaint with financial consequences.

This is why landlords increasingly describe the environment as; unpredictable, hostile, commercially unsafe

It also explains why many landlords are concluding that the risk of continuing to operate outweighs the benefit, especially when penalties are now measured in thousands or tens of thousands of pounds.

How a single discrimination allegation could so easily spiral out of control

In this hypothetical example, the situation does not improve for the landlord after the £6,000 discrimination penalty is issued. Instead, it accelerates into something far more damaging.

Once the enforcement officer concludes that discrimination occurred, the landlord’s details are placed on the Rogue Landlord Database. This step alone creates long-term reputational harm. It also flags the landlord as a subject of interest for further enforcement activity, both locally and nationally.

Local newspapers routinely monitor this database. It is designed to be public facing. The moment a new name appears, it becomes a story. A journalist contacts the council for comment. At this stage, the enforcement officer has little incentive to downplay the matter. The officer is now in a position where the council’s actions appear decisive, the officer’s judgment is validated publicly, and further investigations can be framed as “protecting vulnerable tenants”.

What began as one complaint is now being amplified into a wider narrative.

Sensing momentum, the officer starts reviewing the landlord’s other properties, and opening hundreds of files from other tenants complaining that a landlord also discriminated against them.

For our initial hyperthetical landlord, routine matters that previously would have attracted advisory notices now form the basis of formal investigations. In an atmosphere where publicity is building and the council is presenting itself as proactive, every new file opened is seen as evidence of effective enforcement. The incentives are aligned in only one direction.

Within months, the enforcement officer determines that the landlord meets the criteria for a banning order.

Once a banning order is granted, the consequences are severe. The landlord is prohibited from letting or managing any property in England, all licences must be revoked, the properties may be placed under management orders, rental income is lost, and lenders may intervene if covenants are breached.

This is not a temporary inconvenience, it is the end of the landlord’s business model.

Financial collapse follows quickly. Mortgage payments cannot be sustained without rental income. Forced sales in a distressed context result in losses. Legal costs accumulate. Within a year, the hypothetical landlord has experienced a complete reversal of fortune: from operating a stable rental property business to facing bankruptcy proceedings.

Meanwhile, the enforcement officer, having generated a significant number of enforcement files, is perceived as effective, assertive and diligent. In a system where councils retain the revenue from penalties and where public messaging favours visible enforcement, the officer’s profile within the organisation rises. The officer is promoted to deal with the expanding enforcement department now required by the Council.

The landlord, by contrast, is left with no portfolio, no income and no clear route back into the sector.

This scenario is not presented as a prediction. It is an illustration of how the Renterrs Right Act enforcement mechanics will operate when aligned with financial incentives, public scrutiny and political pressure. It demonstrates the speed at which events can escalate once a complaint transforms into a pattern of enforcement activity. Add in the media and public reaction to a fast expanding database of rougue landlords and it doesn’t take a huge stretch of imagination to envisage how quickly the fire can become a raging and uncontrollable infero.

The scenario I’ve painted above is a reminder that under the new framework, a single allegation can trigger a sequence of consequences far beyond the initial issue.

As they would say on Dragons Den; ” … and for those reasons, I’m out!”

Never again will I be letting another property in the UK.

Links to further helpful reading …

Why Landlords Are Taking Time to Plan Before They Act

Sell now or risk fines, bans and bankruptcy

Should you sell with tenants in place? A practical strategy many landlords overlook

Where to invest if I sell my rentals?

Portugal cuts rental tax to 10%: A warning shot for the UK?

The post When Britain last faced a housing crisis, lenders became mega-landlords. The same pattern could emerge again appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: When Britain last faced a housing crisis, lenders became mega-landlords. The same pattern could emerge again

Landlord Lessons Finale: Property is a business, not passive income

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlord Lessons Finale: Property is a business, not passive income

Across this series, we have explored dozens of mistakes that landlords often make, from deposit protection errors to licensing oversights and safety documentation failures. Each of these stories highlights one truth that experienced landlords already understand: being a landlord is not passive income. It is a business that demands ongoing effort, knowledge and compliance. The reality is far removed from the simplified picture sometimes suggested by HMRC or by political commentary that frames landlords as passive recipients of easy returns.

Running a rental property business involves managing customers in the form of tenants, responding to regulations enforced by councils and government departments, handling finances such as mortgages, tax and insurance, and protecting reputation. Like any business venture, success depends on diligence and planning. The risks are significant. A missed renewal or an invalid notice can cost thousands of pounds, while a failure to understand regulatory change can undermine years of careful investment.

This is why it is so important to tune out the noise from self-styled property gurus who promote the idea of passive income or quick wealth. There is nothing passive about ensuring compliance with the Housing Act, fire safety obligations, tax reporting requirements or dealing with urgent maintenance in the middle of winter. Nor is there anything passive about adapting to legislation such as reforms to Section 21, evolving EPC standards or the expansion of licensing schemes. Property investment can be rewarding, but only when it is treated as a professional business built for the long term.

The 35 lessons shared in this series represent only a fraction of the challenges that landlords face. They prove that systems, records and professional support are vital. They also reinforce that those who approach property as a serious business are the ones most likely to build sustainable returns. Those who treat it as a casual sideline or a shortcut to wealth are more likely to face costly mistakes.

The final lesson

If you want to succeed as a landlord, treat property investment with the seriousness of any other business venture. Respect the rules, invest in knowledge (here on Property118 of course!) and ignore those who sell the dream of effortless passive income. Property is not passive. It is a business that rewards commitment and professionalism.

Source: Gov.uk – Renting out a property guidance

This article concludes the Property118 series Landlord Lessons (for now!).

Catch up on all articles in the series

The AST date mistake

The missing inventory

The verbal agreement trap

The gas safety lapse

The unprotected deposit

The unlicensed HMO

The electrical safety lapse

The Right to Rent slip

The ignored repair

The insurance blindspot

The rent to rent risk

The Section 21 error

The Section 8 misstep

The selective licensing oversight

The EPC blindspot

The rent increase mistake

The service charge shock

The tax record slip

The guarantor gap

The referencing shortcut

The pet clause oversight

The fire safety lapse

The legionella neglect

The asbestos surprise

The DIY eviction disaster

The rent collection chaos

The repair retention row

The unserved notice oversight

The mortgage consent mistake

The licensing renewal lapse

The insurance disclosure failure

The safety certificate oversight

The tenancy agreement template trap

The licensing boundary blunder

The inventory handover failure

The post Landlord Lessons Finale: Property is a business, not passive income appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlord Lessons Finale: Property is a business, not passive income

Sell now or risk fines, bans and bankruptcy

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Sell now or risk fines, bans and bankruptcy

Two articles published on Property118 in recent days have sent a clear message to the sector. The most recent revealed the government’s newly published civil penalty tables, which show fines of up to £35,000 for breaches under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

https://www.property118.com/landlords-fines-renters-rights-act/

The second article , published a week ago, explained why acting early is now the safest way for landlords to protect their equity and avoid losing momentum during the crackdown.

https://www.property118.com/beat-the-crackdown-well-get-your-properties-sold-fast-for-the-maximum-amount-of-cash-in-the-bank/

Taken together, they paint a stark but accurate picture. The regulatory environment has changed. Enforcement has become sharper, faster and more financially damaging. A simple oversight that once might have resulted in a warning can now produce a penalty larger than a year’s rental income. In the most serious cases, councils can apply for a banning order that prevents a landlord from letting or managing any property at all.

These risks are not theoretical. They are written into government guidance and will be used by councils in determining penalties. A missed licence renewal, a possession notice served on the wrong ground or a documentation error can now escalate into a £12,000 fine, a £25,000 penalty or a £30,000 claim relating to possession misuse. For some landlords, a single mistake could wipe out an entire year’s profit or trigger a forced sale under pressure.

This is why more investors are choosing to sell now, before enforcement activity reaches them. Selling ahead of a breach protects capital, avoids regulatory complications and keeps the landlord in control of the timeline and price. The earlier Property118 article about beating the crackdown showed how the strongest sellers are those who act before forced circumstances arise. A planned exit always secures a better result than a reactive one.

Landlords with older stock, deferred maintenance, unclear documentation or properties in licensing zones face the highest exposure. Tenants now have multiple channels to raise issues. Councils have stronger incentives to intervene because they retain the penalty income. The combination means more investigations, earlier inspections and financially painful outcomes for anyone who has not maintained strict compliance.

Selling before this happens is not a retreat. It is a strategic decision to protect equity and avoid a regulatory ambush. The risk is no longer limited to low-level fines. A banning order can end a landlord’s ability to operate, revoke licences and place them on the national rogue landlord database. Once that happens, the ability to sell cleanly at market value disappears.

This is where Landlord Sales Agency offers a critical service. We specialise in fast, efficient sales that achieve strong prices without the months of uncertainty that normally accompany a traditional sale. We understand the market dynamics revealed in the Property118 articles and know that speed and certainty matter just as much as maximising value.

Landlord Sales Agency works with active buyers, portfolio investors and cash purchasers who are ready to proceed. Many sellers receive serious offers within days. The process is straightforward, confidential and designed to protect the landlord’s financial position.

For some landlords, the decision to sell is now a matter of risk management. For others, it is part of retirement planning or a move into different investments. Whatever the motivation, the logic is consistent. Selling before enforcement begins keeps control in the hands of the landlord, not the council.

You can sell now, while the choice is still yours. Or you can hold on and risk the fines, the bans and the financial consequences outlined clearly in the two Property118 articles.

If you want to explore a fast and safe exit, contact Landlord Sales Agency for a confidential discussion. It may be the most important financial decision you make in the next decade.

/* “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_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 Sell now or risk fines, bans and bankruptcy appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Sell now or risk fines, bans and bankruptcy

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Well said Crusader (whoever you are). I posted the following on another thread, but it’s buried in page three of the comments, so I’m posting it again on your new thread to increase visibility.

Just suppose, post Renters’ Right Act becoming fully operational, a landlord has two different tenants apply to rent the same property.  Both are from different minority groups; otherwise, their applications are close to identical. Whichever applicant the landlord chooses, the other can call discrimination and go to the council.

Where does that leave the landlord?

Discrimination penalties now apply even when both applicants are suitable

If two applicants are equally qualified in terms of income, affordability, references, credit, and rental history … the landlord is still required to choose one.

Under the Renters’ Rights Act penalty framework, the unselected applicant could claim indirect discrimination, discriminatory treatment during the selection process, and discriminatory motivation, even without hard evidence.

This pushes landlords into a position where the burden of proof shifts to them, not the complainant.

Councils are empowered and incentivised to enforce

The official guidance gives enforcement officers wide discretion. Councils also retain the revenue from penalties, which means complaints are more likely to be investigated, borderline cases are more likely to attract penalties, and enforcement officers may rely on inference where evidence is limited

If the enforcement officer agrees with the complainant’s allegation, the landlord could face a civil penalty up to £6,000 (discrimination), reputational damage, increased scrutiny of future applications, and heightened risk of being targeted with follow-up inspections or broader compliance reviews.

The landlord’s defence becomes extremely fragile

What, realistically, can the landlord prove?

They can produce financial checks, referencing documents, application timelines, and internal notes.

However, these do not eliminate the possibility of a discrimination finding, because the key legal question is this …

“Did the landlord’s decision treat one applicant less favourably on a protected basis?”

If two applicants are equally suitable, any distinguishing factor the landlord uses to choose between them could be interpreted negatively.

This is exactly why many landlords now feel the enforcement regime is designed so that they cannot practically defend themselves.

The landlord’s position if the penalty is issued

If a £6,000 discrimination penalty is served, the landlord faces three options:

a) Pay the penalty

This can be seen as an admission, even if the landlord disputes the allegation.

b) Make written representations

Local authorities may maintain the penalty unless overwhelming evidence disproves discrimination.

c) Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal

This is costly, slow and uncertain. The landlord risks legal costs, reputational damage, and potential increases in other compliance scrutiny.

A single complaint could therefore trigger a cascade of regulatory exposure.

The wider implications

This scenario illustrates the problem the sector keeps raising:

1. A landlord can comply fully with the law and still be penalised.
2. Selection requires choosing one applicant and rejecting another.
3. Rejection can now lead directly to a discrimination complaint with financial consequences.

This is why landlords increasingly describe the environment as; unpredictable, hostile, commercially unsafe

It also explains why many landlords are concluding that the risk of continuing to operate outweighs the benefit, especially when penalties are now measured in thousands or tens of thousands of pounds.

How a single discrimination allegation could so easily spiral out of control

In this hypothetical example, the situation does not improve for the landlord after the £6,000 discrimination penalty is issued. Instead, it accelerates into something far more damaging.

Once the enforcement officer concludes that discrimination occurred, the landlord’s details are placed on the Rogue Landlord Database. This step alone creates long-term reputational harm. It also flags the landlord as a subject of interest for further enforcement activity, both locally and nationally.

Local newspapers routinely monitor this database. It is designed to be public facing. The moment a new name appears, it becomes a story. A journalist contacts the council for comment. At this stage, the enforcement officer has little incentive to downplay the matter. The officer is now in a position where the council’s actions appear decisive, the officer’s judgment is validated publicly, and further investigations can be framed as “protecting vulnerable tenants”.

What began as one complaint is now being amplified into a wider narrative.

Sensing momentum, the officer starts reviewing the landlord’s other properties, and opening hundreds of files from other tenants complaining that a landlord also discriminated against them.

For our initial hyperthetical landlord, routine matters that previously would have attracted advisory notices now form the basis of formal investigations. In an atmosphere where publicity is building and the council is presenting itself as proactive, every new file opened is seen as evidence of effective enforcement. The incentives are aligned in only one direction.

Within months, the enforcement officer determines that the landlord meets the criteria for a banning order.

Once a banning order is granted, the consequences are severe. The landlord is prohibited from letting or managing any property in England, all licences must be revoked, the properties may be placed under management orders, rental income is lost, and lenders may intervene if covenants are breached.

This is not a temporary inconvenience, it is the end of the landlord’s business model.

Financial collapse follows quickly. Mortgage payments cannot be sustained without rental income. Forced sales in a distressed context result in losses. Legal costs accumulate. Within a year, the hypothetical landlord has experienced a complete reversal of fortune: from operating a stable rental property business to facing bankruptcy proceedings.

Meanwhile, the enforcement officer, having generated a significant number of enforcement files, is perceived as effective, assertive and diligent. In a system where councils retain the revenue from penalties and where public messaging favours visible enforcement, the officer’s profile within the organisation rises. The officer is promoted.

The landlord, by contrast, is left with no portfolio, no income and no clear route back into the sector.

This scenario is not presented as a prediction. It is an illustration of how the Renterrs Right Act enforcement mechanics will operate when aligned with financial incentives, public scrutiny and political pressure. It demonstrates the speed at which events can escalate once a complaint transforms into a pattern of enforcement activity.

It is also a reminder that under the new framework, a single allegation can trigger a sequence of consequences far beyond the initial issue.

As they would say on Dragons Den; ” … and for those reasons, I’m out!”

Never again will I be letting another property in the UK.

The post appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article:

NRLA warns that landlords can’t afford EPC upgrades

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

NRLA warns that landlords can’t afford EPC upgrades

Landlords can’t afford to pay for the proposed EPC rental property upgrades because they don’t earn enough in rent, the National Residential Landlords Association warns.

It says that the government’s proposed funding model risks collapsing before it even begins.

Ministers want landlords to spend up to £15,000 per property to meet the minimum EPC rating of C standards by 2028 for new tenancies, and by 2030 for all tenancies.

But NRLA research reveals that once energy improvement spending passes £7,700, the numbers for the average landlord to make a profit no longer add up.

EPC work not happening

The organisation’s chief executive, Ben Beadle, said: “We want all rental properties to be as energy efficient as possible.

“However, this isn’t going to happen without a serious plan to support the investments needed.

“Relying on the misguided belief that every landlord has limitless reserves to fall back on is not only wrong but will not get tenants any closer to seeing their homes made energy efficient.”

He added: “If the government is serious about its plans, it needs to engage with the sector now to develop a clear, bespoke package to help responsible landlords invest in energy efficiency works.

“That needs to start by fixing a broken tax system which does nothing to encourage proactive property improvements.”

EPC funding cut

The warning follows the Autumn Budget that trimmed overall energy efficiency funding by 25% across this Parliament, a cut highlighted by the think tank E3G.

The NRLA says ministers cannot continue operating on the mistaken belief that landlords form a wealthy, uniform group able to absorb major upgrade costs.

HMRC figures show unincorporated landlords report an average annual rental income of £19,400, which is far below the full-time minimum wage.

Help the PRS deliver

The NRLA says that the recent Budget offered nothing tailored to help the PRS deliver the government’s energy goals.

That’s despite the Committee on Fuel Poverty urging ministers to introduce tax measures to support the required investment.

With landlords waiting for clarity on the final proposals, the NRLA wants all energy efficiency spending to be fully deductible for income tax.

It is also pushing for the proposed investment cap to reflect property values, warning that a single national limit would hit cheaper areas hardest and deepen the divide between northern and southern regions.

The post NRLA warns that landlords can’t afford EPC upgrades appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: NRLA warns that landlords can’t afford EPC upgrades

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

admin    Uncategorized     agents

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)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 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

admin    Uncategorized     agents

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.

Housing Act 1988 breaches and offences

Housing Act 2004 Offences

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

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Breaches

Source data:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-penalties-under-the-renters-rights-act-2025-and-other-housing-legislation/civil-penalties-under-the-renters-rights-act-2025-and-other-housing-legislation

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

admin    Uncategorized     agents

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