Property118 launches the UK’s largest ever landlord sentiment survey

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Property118 launches the UK’s largest ever landlord sentiment survey

At midday today, Property118 launched what is expected to become the UK’s largest recurring landlord sentiment survey, reaching 47,886 members across its network.

The objective is simple, but long overdue: to give landlords a clear, consistent voice, backed by real data, rather than anecdote.

For years, policy debates have been shaped by selective evidence, lobbying narratives, and lagging official statistics. What has been missing is a reliable, repeatable measure of how landlords themselves are actually thinking and behaving in real time.

This survey is designed to change that.

A live picture of landlord decision-making

The survey takes less than three minutes to complete, yet the questions go directly to the heart of the decisions landlords are making right now.

Participants are asked about:

• Whether their portfolios have grown, shrunk, or remained stable over the past two years
• Their likely direction of travel over the next 12 months, including buying, selling, or exiting
• Whether they expect to refinance in the coming year
• The factors most likely to influence both acquisition and disposal decisions
• Preferred ownership structures for future purchases
• The role of life insurance in managing risk and legacy planning
• Age profile, providing context to long-term decision making

Each question has been deliberately framed to capture behaviour, because what landlords say they feel is interesting; what they are actually planning to do is far more valuable.

Why this matters now

There is a growing disconnect between how the sector is portrayed and what is happening on the ground. Legislative changes, tax policy, and regulatory pressure have all combined to create a sense of uncertainty. Many landlords are not reacting immediately, but they are reassessing, often adjusting strategy rather than making headline decisions.

That kind of shift rarely shows up in official data until it is too late. This survey is designed to capture those early signals.

It is not just about whether landlords are selling. It is about understanding why, when, and under what conditions they might change course. Equally, it identifies what would give landlords the confidence to invest again.

Built for consistency, not a one-off headline

This is not a single survey designed to generate a one-off headline. Property118 intends to run this survey at the end of every quarter, creating a consistent data series over time. That consistency is what will give the results real weight. Trends will begin to emerge, confidence levels can be tracked, and behavioural shifts can be identified before they become visible elsewhere.

In time, this will provide something the sector has never had before, a reliable benchmark for landlord sentiment.

From data to influence

The intention is not simply to publish results, but to use them. Aggregated findings will be shared with lenders, policymakers, journalists, and industry bodies. The aim is to ensure that decisions affecting the private rented sector are informed by real behaviour, not assumptions.

There is also a commercial reality underpinning this. Lenders, brokers, and insurers all operate more effectively when they understand the direction of travel within the landlord community. Better data leads to better products, better risk assessment, and ultimately more stable outcomes for everyone involved.

Early indicators to watch

While results will not be published until later this week, there are already some key areas of interest:

• The balance between buying, selling, and holding
• Appetite for refinancing in a higher rate environment
• The extent to which ownership structures are shifting
• Whether life insurance is becoming a more mainstream risk management tool
• How age influences decision-making across portfolios

Each of these points speaks to a broader question: are landlords retreating, repositioning, or preparing for the next phase?

A collective voice

Perhaps the most important aspect of this initiative is participation. With nearly 48,000 landlords invited, even a modest response rate will produce one of the most meaningful datasets the sector has seen.

For landlords, this is an opportunity to contribute to something that goes beyond individual portfolios. It is a chance to shape the narrative with evidence rather than opinion.

The results will be published on Property118 later this week, and for once, the story will be told using the landlords’ own data.

The post Property118 launches the UK’s largest ever landlord sentiment survey appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Property118 launches the UK’s largest ever landlord sentiment survey

Why Whole of Life in trust might be the most misunderstood legacy savings plan available

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Why Whole of Life in trust might be the most misunderstood legacy savings plan available

Most landlords do not think of insurance as a savings strategy; they see it as a cost. A necessary one perhaps, but still a cost. That instinct is understandable, because most forms of insurance are designed to protect against events that may never happen – e.g. buildings insurance, liability cover, rent guarantee, etc. – you pay the premium and hope you never need to claim.

Whole of Life insurance written in trust sits in a very different category. It is not protecting against a possibility; it is planning for a certainty.

The difference most people overlook

Every landlord who has built a meaningful portfolio faces the same eventual outcome. At some point, their estate will be assessed for inheritance tax. This is not a remote risk; it is a known future event. That distinction matters because it changes how the numbers should be viewed.

A typical scenario might look like this. A couple in their fifties are quoted around £770 per month for £1 million of cover. The immediate reaction is to view that as an outgoing of £770 leaving the household each month, but let’s look at it another way. That £770 is not disappearing; it is being converted into a guaranteed future payout that will be triggered at exactly the moment the liability arises. In that sense, it behaves far more like a ring-fenced legacy fund than a traditional insurance policy.

A savings plan with a defined purpose

Most savings plans are open-ended, in that you build capital over time and then decide later how it will be used – for example: retirement income, reinvestment, gifting, or simply holding cash for optionality.

Whole of Life in trust works in reverse.

The purpose is defined first, e.g. cover the inheritance tax liability.

The funding mechanism is then structured to deliver that outcome with certainty.

For property investors, this clarity can be particularly valuable. Their wealth is often tied up in appreciating assets that generate income but do not easily convert to cash at short notice. A policy written in trust creates liquidity precisely where the portfolio cannot.

Why it often outperforms “do nothing and invest”

A common objection is that the premiums could instead be invested elsewhere. On the surface, that seems reasonable. £770 per month invested over time could accumulate into a substantial sum.

However, the problem is not the potential return, it is the timing and certainty, because inheritance tax does not wait for markets to be favourable. It does not pause while assets are sold. It does not adjust based on whether a portfolio is temporarily illiquid. Instead, it becomes payable when the estate is assessed, and an investment portfolio may or may not be worth the right amount at the right time, whereas a Whole of Life policy is designed specifically to be. That difference removes a layer of uncertainty that many families only recognise when it is too late.

The trust structure changes everything

The “in trust” element is often treated as a technical detail, but in reality, it is fundamental.

When structured correctly, the policy proceeds do not form part of the estate. Instead, they are paid directly to trustees, who can then use the funds to settle the inheritance tax liability. This avoids two critical problems. First, it prevents the payout from increasing the taxable estate. Second, it ensures that funds are available immediately, rather than being locked inside the probate process.

For families with property portfolios, this can be the difference between orderly succession and forced decision-making under pressure.

Certainty versus flexibility

There is a broader philosophical point here. Many financial strategies prioritise flexibility. Keep options open, retain access to capital, adapt as circumstances change.

That approach has merit during the accumulation phase, but legacy planning is different. At that stage, certainty often becomes more valuable than flexibility.

Whole of Life in trust is, in effect, a decision to exchange a known monthly cost for a known future outcome. For some, that trade-off will feel restrictive. For others, it provides a level of clarity and control that no other structure quite replicates.

Why timing matters more than the product

As our previous article demonstrated, the availability and pricing of cover can change quickly. Health events, even relatively minor ones, can alter the economics permanently.

The irony is that the best time to consider this type of planning is often the moment when it feels least urgent. That is also the moment when it is most efficient.

A different way to think about legacy

Seen through the right lens, Whole of Life in trust is not simply about covering a tax bill. It is about protecting the integrity of a lifetime’s work. It allows a property portfolio to pass intact, without the need for distressed sales, emergency borrowing, or compromises that undermine long-term plans.

For many landlords, that is the real objective. Not just to build wealth, but to pass it on in a controlled and deliberate way.

In that context, the question is not whether the premiums represent good value in isolation, the question is whether the outcome they secure is worth the cost.

Final thoughts

Most savings plans are judged on growth, Whole of Life insurance in trust should be judged on certainty, and for families whose wealth is tied up in property, certainty at the right moment can be the most valuable asset of all.

In terms of viability, £770 per month for £1 million of cover works out at roughly £9,200 per year. Even over 30 years, that is in the region of £276,000 in total premiums. They would need to live a very long time before the premiums paid exceed the £1,000,000 payout. More importantly, the outcome is not linear. They could pay a single premium and die the following month, in which case the full £1 million is paid. Also, if they were to delay they could suffer a change in health, and find the same cover is no longer available on comparable terms.

Get A Quote

Our research into Whole of Life insurance was kindly assisted by Alice Ward-Smith, a whole of market, FCA regulated, Independent Financial Adviser.

To arrange a free consultation with Alice or her team, please complete and submit the form below.

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

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_586′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_586′).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_586′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_586′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_586′).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_586′).val();gformInitSpinner( 586, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [586, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_586′] = 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_586′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [586]);window[‘gf_submitting_586′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_586′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_586′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “586”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_586″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_586″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_586″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 586, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

The post Why Whole of Life in trust might be the most misunderstood legacy savings plan available appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why Whole of Life in trust might be the most misunderstood legacy savings plan available

Is Shelter still a housing charity?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Is Shelter still a housing charity?

What exactly is Shelter?

Most donors believe they know the answer.

The name itself suggests a simple mission: providing shelter to people who need it, but organisations evolve, campaigns expand, roles change. Over time, the question becomes less straightforward.

Several years ago, David Knox FCA asked whether Shelter had become something more than a traditional housing charity.

At the time, the question sparked debate.

Today, with Shelter playing a major role in shaping housing policy and public perception of the private rented sector, it is worth asking again.

What Shelter does — and does not — do

Shelter does not own or manage housing stock.

It does not operate as a social landlord.

It does not directly provide accommodation under its own portfolio.

Its core activities are:

• Policy advocacy
• Advice services
• Legal casework
• Research
• Campaigning

There is nothing improper about that, many charities operate in advisory or advocacy roles.

However, the name “Shelter” carries a strong semantic association with physical housing provision. The word itself implies roofs, beds and bricks, but the operational reality is different.

David Knox FCA believed that donors to Shelter should understand that distinction clearly.

From advice provider to policy influencer

Shelter’s role in housing reform debates has expanded over the past decade.

It has been prominent in campaigns relating to:

• Abolition of Section 21
• Renters Rights Act
• Landlord Licensing
• Increased compliance
• Please feel to mention others in the comment section below this article.

Its press releases are frequently cited in national media, its statistics enter parliamentary debate, and its representatives appear in consultation processes.

This places Shelter not merely in the role of service provider, but in that of policy actor.

When an organisation influences legislation affecting millions of private landlords and tenants, scrutiny of its institutional positioning becomes legitimate.

Statutory funding and contractual relationships

Shelter receives statutory grant and contract income.

This means it operates partly within publicly funded frameworks while simultaneously campaigning for policy change in the same housing system.

Again, this is not inherently improper.

However, it raises structural questions:

• To what extent does statutory funding influence strategic direction?
• How independent is campaigning from contractual obligations?
• Is Shelter best understood as an advocacy charity, a public service contractor, or both?

Institutional hybridity is increasingly common in the third sector, but it can also complicate public perception.

The campaigning dimension

Shelter’s campaigns frequently frame the private rented sector in adversarial terms.

Headlines highlight eviction surges, illegal practices and insecurity.

From Shelter’s perspective, this is advocacy for tenants.

From many landlords’ perspective it feels like systemic characterisation of the sector as problematic.

Campaigning is not neutral by design, it emphasises urgency.

The question is not whether Shelter campaigns. It does. The question is whether its institutional identity is more aligned with campaigning than with traditional charitable housing service provision.

David Knox’s discomfort lay precisely there.

Influence and accountability

When a charity; shapes media narratives, influences legislative reform, receives statutory funding, and operates nationally at scale, it occupies a space closer to institutional actor than purely benevolent service provider.

With influence comes heightened expectation of transparency and proportionality.

So far in this series we have examined financial scale and statistical framing.

Taken together, they demonstrate that Shelter is a significant participant in shaping housing policy, not a peripheral voice.

That makes institutional clarity essential.

Brand versus function

The final question is one of alignment.

Does the brand name “Shelter” accurately reflect its primary operational activity?

For many donors, the intuitive assumption is direct housing provision.

In practice, the organisation provides advice, representation and campaigning.

There is nothing inherently misleading about that distinction, provided it is understood.

What matters is clarity.

Returning to David’s question

David Knox did not argue that Shelter should cease to exist; he argued that large, influential organisations should withstand scrutiny without defensiveness.

He read the accounts because Shelter influenced the policy environment in which landlords operate.

That remains true.

Shelter is:

• A major charity
• A campaigning voice
• A policy participant
• A statutory contractor
• A media source

It is not a housing provider in the traditional sense.

Understanding that institutional profile allows readers to interpret both financial figures and statistical claims with appropriate context.

That is not hostility; it is perspective.

About David Knox FCA

David Knox FCA, who wrote for Property118 under the pseudonym “Appalled Landlord”, passed away on 21 January 2020. His investigative work, including his scrutiny of Shelter’s published accounts, remains available in the Property118 archives. This series of articles revisits the same type of publicly available source material in the analytical spirit of his work. A tribute to David can be read here.

The post Is Shelter still a housing charity? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Is Shelter still a housing charity?