Letting agent supplying contractors?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Letting agent supplying contractors?

As a single property landlord who lives a fair distance from my property. I am heavily reliant on the letting agent to find suitable contractors for jobs at my property.

A prime example involved a staircase handrail, which was to be moved to the opposite side of the stairs and repainted. The letting agent informed me that the work had been completed and that the contractor had been paid.

I was due to pass near the property, which coincided with a planned property check by the letting agent and the tenants agreed for me to attend.

Looking round, it was obvious that the work had not been carried out. I took numerous photos, and the letting agent was profusely sorry, but she did not work in that office and was only covering.

It took months to get the money back from the letting agent, and I told them that the contractor was banned from my property.

It seemed to me that there is no oversight on the contractors, and one has to trust them when they inform the letting agent what work needs to be done and that the work has been carried out.

What degree, if any, of oversight is there regarding the amount contractors claim and whether the work is carried out to a high standard?

Thanks,

Tom

The post Letting agent supplying contractors? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Letting agent supplying contractors?

SNP plan to give tenants first refusal on homes sparks backlash

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

SNP plan to give tenants first refusal on homes sparks backlash

Ahead of the Scottish elections, the SNP has pledged tenants will get first refusal if a landlord puts their home up for sale.

Under the proposed plans, when a landlord puts the property on the market, renters in Scotland would be given a period of exclusivity to purchase it “at a fair market rate”.

The Scottish Conservatives have claimed the plans “will spook landlords”, while the Scottish Association of Landlords (SAL) warns there is a lack of clarity over what constitutes a “fair market price”.

Forcing people to upend their whole lives

First Minister John Swinney claimed the policy would help young people who are stuck renting and can’t save up for a deposit.

He said: “So many people are stuck paying more on rent than they would on a mortgage, and with costs just going up and up, there is nothing left over at the end of the month to save for a deposit.”

“That has made it all the more difficult when private renters find themselves having to leave their home because the owner has decided to sell up. As well as forcing people to upend their whole lives, it also has serious financial implications.

“That is why I will give renters the right to first refusal on the home they live in, at a fair market rate, if the owner of the property decides to sell.”

Reckless intervention in the housing market

However, the Scottish Conservatives warn the policy would make it harder for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder.

Scottish Conservative housing spokesperson, Meghan Gallacher, said: “This is another reckless SNP intervention in the housing market.

“Far from doing what John Swinney thinks it will do, it will spook landlords, choke off supply and instead make it even harder for first-time buyers to get on the ladder.

“John Swinney is talking this up as support for renters, but the reality will be a housing market in Scotland that is even more broken.

“The Scottish Conservatives will scrap LBTT, Scotland’s version of stamp duty, and focus on delivering 80,000 affordable homes. That is the only way to truly make home ownership achievable.

“The best way to stop an SNP majority and get Scotland building again is for Scots to vote for the Scottish Conservatives on their peach ballot on May 7th.”

Meaning of fair market price

Landlord organisation SAL warns the devil will be in the detail over how the policy would work in practice, particularly around the meaning of a “fair market price”.

SAL chief executive John Blackwood said: “We welcome any move that results in more homes becoming available as part of an effort to tackle the housing crisis.

“Many landlords tell us that they would prefer to sell to their tenants and allow them to stay in their homes, saving landlords the hassle of ending the tenancy and marketing the property for sale.

“However, the question for landlords will be what is the “fair market price”, and, as always, we await the details to determine who this policy will actually support.

“For far too long, the discussion has been framed as pitting landlords’ rights against those of tenants. We hope we can reframe that as more of a partnership between a customer and a provider.

“To properly tackle the housing emergency, we need a full range of properties available, including in the private rented sector. This means incentivising landlords to invest and grow their portfolios and avoiding measures that actively discourage them.”

The Scottish elections take place on May 7, and SAL has previously told Property118 that politicians need to change their attitude towards landlords.

The post SNP plan to give tenants first refusal on homes sparks backlash appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: SNP plan to give tenants first refusal on homes sparks backlash

Majority of landlords still own personally despite shift towards companies

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Majority of landlords still own personally despite shift towards companies

A growing disconnect is emerging within the structure of UK property ownership. According to the Property118 Landlord Sentiment Survey Q1 2026, most landlords continue to hold property in their personal names, even though many now indicate a preference for company ownership going forward.

Based on 2,380 completed responses, 61% of landlords currently own their properties personally. At the same time, a majority indicate that if they were acquiring today, they would do so through a limited company. You can explore the full findings here.

The implication is clear: a large proportion of the sector is effectively locked into structures that may no longer reflect current preferences.

A legacy structure in a changing environment

For many landlords, personal ownership reflects the conditions that existed when their portfolios were built. At that time, borrowing structures, tax treatment and regulatory expectations all supported individual ownership. Over time, those conditions have shifted. While new acquisitions are increasingly viewed through a company lens, existing portfolios remain where they started, in personal ownership, often without a clear pathway to restructure.

Why landlords do not simply switch

At first glance, the solution might appear straightforward. If company ownership is preferred, why not transfer existing properties?

In practice, the decision is more complex. Transferring property from personal ownership into a company can trigger a combination of costs, including capital gains tax and stamp duty. Financing arrangements may also need to be revisited, adding further friction. The result is a situation where landlords recognise a preferred structure, but remain in their current position due to the practical implications of change.

A structural constraint on decision making

This disconnect between current ownership and future preference has wider consequences. When landlords feel constrained by their structure, it can influence a range of decisions, including whether to expand, refinance or exit. In some cases, the lack of flexibility may contribute to the decision to reduce portfolios rather than attempt a complex restructure.

This aligns with other findings in the Property118 dataset, where a significant proportion of landlords are choosing to step back from the market rather than adapt their existing structures.

A gap between intention and action

The data highlights a clear gap between what landlords would choose to do today and what they have been able to implement in practice. This is not a question of awareness. Many landlords are fully aware of alternative structures and their potential benefits. The issue lies in execution. Bridging that gap requires careful consideration of tax, financing and long-term objectives, which means decisions are often delayed or avoided altogether.

A sector in transition

The coexistence of personal ownership and a growing preference for company structures suggests that the sector is in transition rather than at a fixed point.

Some landlords are moving towards corporate ownership for new acquisitions, while others remain anchored in legacy structures. Over time, this may lead to a gradual shift in how property is held, but the pace of that change is likely to be uneven.

For now, one conclusion stands out: many landlords are not operating in the structure they would choose today, and that constraint is shaping how they respond to the market.

Important context: Property118 is not currently recommending Section 162 incorporation for landlords with mortgages while legal uncertainty remains over the treatment of mortgage liabilities. Read our current position here: Why Property118 is not currently recommending s162 incorporation to landlords with mortgages

A conversation worth having?

If you are weighing up your own strategy, whether that’s to sell, expand, or restructure to improve profitibility, it is worth having a discussion with a Property118 consultant to take a closer look at how your portfolio is structured as a whole now, and to forecast the outcomes based on multiple scenario’s.

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

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

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

The post Majority of landlords still own personally despite shift towards companies appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Majority of landlords still own personally despite shift towards companies

Renters’ Rights Act Masterclass – Are you ready for 1 May?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Renters’ Rights Act Masterclass – Are you ready for 1 May?

With the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force on 1 May 2026, landlords are facing the biggest legal changes in a generation.

I’m finding that many landlords still aren’t entirely clear what they need to do and more importantly, what they need to do now to stay compliant and avoid problems later.

Over the past few months, I’ve been running training sessions for Landlord Law members on the new rules. But given the scale of the changes, I’ve decided to run a longer, more detailed session open to everyone.

So, on 21 April, I will be running a 3-hour Renters’ Rights Act Masterclass, where I will cover:

• what actually changes on 1 May
• what you must do (and by when)
• how to avoid fines and compliance problems
• practical strategies for managing tenancies going forward

This is designed to be a practical, no-nonsense session—not just theory, but what the changes mean for you in real terms.

How to attend

The Masterclass is free for Landlord Law members (in place of the usual 1.5-hour training session).

Non-members can attend for £40, or you can join Landlord Law from £25–£30 pcm (no minimum term) and attend for free, along with access to all member resources.

This includes my new Renters’ Rights Act – compliant tenancy agreement, which I am currently drafting.

Even if you’ve already done some training, this is one of those situations where it really helps to go through everything carefully — there is a lot to take in, and quite a few potential pitfalls.

Masterclass details in a nutshell:

Date: Tuesday 21 April 2026
Venue: Online
Time: Starts at 9.00 am, ending at 12.15 pm with a 15-minute comfort break
Cost: Free (members) / £40 inc VAT (non-members)
CPD: 3 hours – certificate provided if our system shows you attended
Recording: Available to business-level members only after the event.

I look forward to seeing you all on 21 April!  Click here to view full details and book your place.

Tessa Shepperson.

Tessa is a specialist landlord and tenant lawyer with over 25 years experience.  She runs the Landlord Law online information service at www.landlordlaw.co.uk.  You can sign up to her free weekly bulletin (and get a free pet form) at www.landlordlaw.co.uk/bulletin.

The post Renters’ Rights Act Masterclass – Are you ready for 1 May? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Renters’ Rights Act Masterclass – Are you ready for 1 May?