Longer notice periods could push landlords to sell up in Northern Ireland

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Longer notice periods could push landlords to sell up in Northern Ireland

The Northern Ireland government must “strike the right balance” under proposed rental reforms or risk landlords leaving the market, Propertymark warns.

The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland has proposed introducing some of the longest Notice to Quit periods in the UK, increasing standard notice periods for tenants to up to six months.

The current minimum notice to quit for tenancies in Northern Ireland of 12 months or less is four weeks.

Landlords leaving the sector

In response to a consultation on the reforms, Propertymark said Northern Ireland policymakers must allow landlords to regain possession of their properties.

The industry body said on its website: “With notice periods potentially rising from eight weeks to six months, Propertymark stresses that landlords must retain confidence in the possession process, particularly in cases involving rent arrears, anti-social behaviour or breaches of tenancy agreements.

“Failure to strike the right balance could see landlords leave the sector altogether.

“Landlords who experience negative experiences of evicting tenants may end up selling their property rather than face lengthy void periods where they cannot collect rent.

“This risk is particularly acute in Northern Ireland, where landlords are more likely to own smaller portfolios, making them more vulnerable to lost rental income.”

Unintended consequences

The industry body also warns that increasing notice periods without robust exemptions could have unintended consequences.

Propertymark says that while it supports shorter notice periods in specific circumstances, such as serious rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and criminal offences, it is calling for several key changes to make the system work in practice.

These include lowering the rent arrears threshold to allow earlier action against non-paying tenants. It also calls for clearer definitions of anti-social behaviour to prevent misuse and support evidence-based decisions.

The organisation is also proposing changing the threshold for criminal behaviour from “convicted” to “charged”, due to lengthy court timelines. It wants evidence requirements to be practical and consistent, particularly in partnership with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

The post Longer notice periods could push landlords to sell up in Northern Ireland appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Longer notice periods could push landlords to sell up in Northern Ireland

Property118 highlights HMRC manual SDLTM07700 in ongoing FTT debate

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Property118 highlights HMRC manual SDLTM07700 in ongoing FTT debate

There is a recurring assumption in recent commentary that tax consequences only arise once legal ownership of property has formally transferred. It is an understandable assumption, but it is also, in many cases, incomplete.

As the ongoing First-tier Tribunal in the DOTAS case of Property118 vs HMRC examines the interaction between incorporation, financing, and tax treatment, it is worth revisiting what HMRC’s own guidance actually says about when a transaction is recognised for tax purposes.

What HMRC says about “substantial performance”

HMRC’s Stamp Duty Land Tax Manual confirms that a transaction can be treated as having taken place before legal completion, where a contract has been substantially performed.

The guidance is set out here: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm07700

In simple terms, where substantial performance occurs, the contract itself is treated as the effective transaction for tax purposes, even if legal title has not yet transferred.

HMRC goes on to explain that substantial performance can arise where, for example:

• possession of the property is taken, or
• rents or income begin to flow to the acquirer (e.g. tenant begins paying rent into the acquiring company bank account), or
• consideration has been paid in a way that reflects the economic reality of the arrangement (e.g. issue of shares or share premium)

This is not an obscure or newly developed concept; it has been part of the UK tax framework for many years.

Why this matters in the current debate

The relevance of this guidance is not that it proves any particular structure is effective, it is that it highlights a broader and well-established principle: tax law does not always wait for legal title to catch up with economic reality.

That distinction between legal ownership, and beneficial or economic entitlement runs through multiple areas of UK tax legislation.

It also explains why HMRC manuals, case law, and professional guidance have long recognised situations where tax consequences arise at a different point in time to legal completion.

Connecting the dots with BIM45700

In a previous article, we looked at HMRC’s Business Income Manual at BIM45700, which confirms that business owners may withdraw capital and replace it with loan funding, with interest relief available where the borrowing supports the business.

That article can be read here: https://www.property118.com/property118-puts-hmrc-manual-bim45700-under-ftt-scrutiny/

Taken together, BIM45700 and SDLTM07700 illustrate a consistent theme within HMRC’s own published material:

1. commercial transactions are often recognised based on their economic substance
2. financing and ownership do not always move in perfect legal alignment, and
3. tax legislation accommodates that reality

Why Property118 is currently advising caution

None of this changes the position we set out previously.

As explained here, Property118 is not currently recommending Section 162 incorporation for landlords with mortgages. That is not because the underlying commercial or tax principles are considered invalid, it is because HMRC’s current interpretation, particularly in relation to mortgage liabilities and potential consideration, introduces uncertainty that has yet to be tested in the Tribunal.

A question of interpretation, not invention

The purpose of the ongoing Tribunal proceedings is not to establish something entirely new, it is to determine how established principles, many of which are reflected in HMRC’s own manuals, should be applied in practice where incorporation and financing interact. The inclusion of SDLTM07700 in this discussion is therefore not about stretching legislation, it is about recognising that the relationship between legal form and tax treatment has always been more nuanced than a simple transfer of title.

Where this leaves landlords and advisers

For landlords, accountants, and advisers, the position remains one of careful consideration.

The commercial drivers behind incorporation remain unchanged. These include:

• long-term business continuity
• improved lender stress-testing
• ring-fencing of some liabilities
• holding profit for reinvestment or repayment of debt
• succession planning

However, until there is greater clarity on HMRC’s current interpretation, particularly in relation to mortgaged property, a cautious approach to s162 incorporation is appropriate.

A conversation worth having?

If you are weighing up your own strategy, whether that involves holding, restructuring, or reducing your portfolio, it is worth stepping back and reviewing how everything fits together.

Our consultancy does not start with a recommendation. It starts with understanding what you are trying to achieve, and whether your current structure supports that.

These conversations are typically most useful for landlords with established portfolios and relatively modest borrowing who are beginning to think about how their assets will serve them over the next phase.

/* “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 Property118 highlights HMRC manual SDLTM07700 in ongoing FTT debate appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Property118 highlights HMRC manual SDLTM07700 in ongoing FTT debate

Temporary accommodation costs have tripled since 2016 in line with Property118 predictions

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Temporary accommodation costs have tripled since 2016 in line with Property118 predictions

The housing cost that almost nobody expected.

In 2018, Property118 contributor, the now late David Knox FCA, writing under the pseudonym Appalled Landlord, examined a statistic that seemed extraordinary at the time.

Manchester City Council’s spending on temporary accommodation had risen from roughly £2.25 million to almost £13 million in just five years.

The increase, around 478%, suggested something unusual was happening in the local housing system.

At the time it appeared to be a regional issue. Manchester was struggling with rising homelessness pressures and expensive short-term accommodation placements, but the numbers David highlighted now look less like an anomaly and more like an early warning.

Across England, councils are now estimated to be spending close to £3 billion every year on temporary accommodation for homeless households.

More than 110,000 households are currently living in temporary accommodation, the highest figure recorded since comparable statistics began.

What once appeared to be a local financial problem has become a national housing crisis, and looking back at David Knox’s article today, one conclusion is difficult to ignore; he saw the trajectory years before most policymakers noticed it.

Looking back at David Knox’s warning

Looking back at David Knox’s work today, it is difficult not to notice how often his analysis identified trends before they became widely recognised. In article after article he examined official statistics, local authority spending and housing policy decisions, often highlighting consequences that were still years away from becoming visible nationally. In hindsight, some readers have joked that he was the “Nostradamus of the private rented sector”. What he was actually doing was something far simpler, and far more valuable. He was reading the data carefully and asking where the trajectory might lead.

How temporary accommodation became a multi-billion-pound system

To understand how these costs escalated so quickly, it is necessary to look at how temporary accommodation actually works in practice.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide accommodation for households they accept as homeless and in priority need. When councils do not have sufficient social housing available, they must secure accommodation elsewhere.

In many areas this increasingly means relying on the private sector. Councils place households in privately rented properties, hostels, converted buildings or, in the most expensive cases, hotels and nightly-paid accommodation.

These arrangements were originally intended to be temporary solutions while permanent housing was secured. Over time, however, shortages in both social housing and affordable private rentals have meant that temporary placements often last far longer than originally intended.

What began as a short-term safety net has gradually evolved into a large parallel housing system operated by local authorities.

The financial consequences are substantial. Nightly-paid accommodation can cost councils several times more than equivalent long-term housing, particularly in high-demand urban areas where property prices and rents are already elevated.

Once households enter temporary accommodation, councils frequently struggle to move them on because there are too few suitable permanent homes available.

The result is a system where both the number of households and the duration of placements continue to rise.

Why councils became trapped in the system

One of the less widely understood aspects of temporary accommodation is the way it is funded. Local authorities receive housing benefit subsidy from central government, but the reimbursement rules were largely frozen many years ago. In many cases the subsidy only covers part of the cost of accommodation. When councils are forced to place households in more expensive private accommodation, the gap between the subsidy and the actual cost must be covered from the local authority’s own budget.

This creates a structural funding problem. The more councils rely on temporary accommodation, the larger the unfunded portion of the cost becomes. In areas where housing shortages are severe, local authorities often have little choice but to continue using expensive placements simply to meet their legal obligations.

Over time, this dynamic has pushed temporary accommodation spending from millions into billions.

Manchester was not the anomaly

When David highlighted Manchester’s 478% increase in temporary accommodation spending, it appeared to be an unusually sharp example of local housing pressure. However, looking at the national figures today, it is clear that Manchester was not unique. Many councils across England have experienced similar patterns of rising demand, limited housing supply and escalating costs associated with short-term placements. The difference is that what once appeared to be a localised issue has now become systemic.

Temporary accommodation is no longer simply a safety net for a relatively small number of households. It has grown into a large and extremely expensive component of the housing system.

Lessons for housing policy

The purpose of revisiting David Knox’s work is not to suggest that temporary accommodation should not exist. Every housing system requires emergency provision for households facing sudden crises. However, the scale of the current system raises important questions about how housing policy has evolved over the past decade.

If temporary accommodation costs have tripled since 2016, it suggests that the underlying housing shortages that drive homelessness have not been resolved. It also highlights how expensive it can be when the housing system relies heavily on short-term solutions rather than long-term supply.

David Knox’s original article focused on a single city and a striking set of figures. In hindsight, it also captured a trajectory that would later become visible across the country.

There is also a broader question worth asking. If the cost of temporary accommodation has risen from around £1 billion to almost £3 billion a year in less than a decade, what will the figure look like five years from now if the underlying housing shortages remain unresolved? Local authorities are already warning that the current trajectory is financially unsustainable. Whether policymakers are willing to address the structural causes behind the numbers remains to be seen.

Manchester was not the crisis, it was the warning.

The post Temporary accommodation costs have tripled since 2016 in line with Property118 predictions appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Temporary accommodation costs have tripled since 2016 in line with Property118 predictions

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?

BR Investments: The trade most landlords never consider

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

BR Investments: The trade most landlords never consider

Many landlords only start thinking about this when they are already in their 60’s and above, and by then, some of the options are already close to closing.

The recent Property118 landlord survey revealed that many established landlords have very low LTV’s across their rental property portfolios, and some have no borrowing at all, but is that equity actually doing anything useful?” In many cases, it isn’t; it’s just sitting there while a future inheritance tax bill builds in the background.

Whole of Life insurance in trust is one option, but some people are uninsurable. Many landlords are over-exposed to property because that’s all they know. That’s why they rarely seek advice about diversification from a regulated whole of market IFA, but that’s a mistake.

The trade most landlords never consider

Let’s keep this simple.

You have £1,000,000 of equity sitting in your portfolio.

Left untouched, that £1,000,000 could face a 40% inheritance tax charge.

That is potentially a £400,000 problem, and likely a growing one.

Most landlords accept that as “something for later”, whereas others with an open mind might ask: “What happens if I borrow against that equity and reposition it?”

This is where Business Relief (BR) starts to become relevant, because certain investments into qualifying trading businesses such as Octopus can fall outside your estate for inheritance tax purposes after a two-year holding period. The investment remains accessible during your lifetime, meaning you’re not giving money away; you are repositioning it.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not an invitation to invest, nor is it to be regarded as financial advice or a recommendation of Octopus Investments. The purpose of this article is financial education.

Why some landlords are funding BR investments through borrowing

Rather than using existing cash, some landlords refinance part of their portfolio and use the capital released to fund Business Relief qualifying investments.

That may sound counterintuitive at first; why risk taking on debt to invest into something other than property?

The answer sits in the balance between cost and outcome.

The objective isn’t necessarily for the investment to outperform the cost of borrowing, even though it may be possible in some cases. Instead, the objective is to remove a 40% inheritance tax exposure on that capital after two years, and viewed through that lens, the decision is less about yield and more about liability management.

What this can achieve in practice

Used carefully, this approach can begin to reshape exposure to IHT over time because a portion of the estate becomes more liquid, part of the inheritance tax exposure starts to reduce after two years and yet the property portfolio itself remains intact. It also creates optionality if circumstances change because the arrangements could be reversed by cashing in the investment and paying debt back down.

This is not without risk

It is important to be clear that this is not a risk-free strategy. Borrowing introduces ongoing cost and lender considerations while Business Relief investments carry capital risk, and qualification depends on the nature of the underlying businesses at the time. This is not about replacing one certainty with another; it’s about deciding which risks you are more comfortable managing.

An invitation for established landlords

If you find the Property118 articles helpful and are curious about how those ideas apply to your own portfolio, you are welcome to take the conversation a step further.

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

From there we can arrange a free introductory discussion to explore how your portfolio works as a whole and what that might mean for the years ahead.

The post BR Investments: The trade most landlords never consider appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: BR Investments: The trade most landlords never consider

EXCLUSIVE: SpareRoom suspends HMO agents over automation tool use

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

EXCLUSIVE: SpareRoom suspends HMO agents over automation tool use

Letting agents handling thousands of HMO rooms on behalf of landlords across the country were abruptly locked out of SpareRoom last week after the platform suspended dozens of professional accounts without warning.

The platform said their use of automation tools is a breach of its terms.

Emails sent to affected users said accounts would remain suspended for up to four days unless agents confirmed they had removed the third-party tools.

Between them, the suspended accounts covered thousands of rooms listed on the site.

For many agents, SpareRoom is the main route to market, leaving little room to manoeuvre when access is removed.

Activities stopped immediately

Lee Dumbarton, founder of UrbanShare, which operates across London, Surrey and the home counties, said routine activity stopped almost immediately.

He told Property118: “We weren’t trying to gain anything. We were trying to respond to people faster, which is better for tenants, too.

“To have the account suspended without any warning was a real shock.”

Because enquiries are handled through SpareRoom’s internal messaging system, agents found themselves unable to contact prospective tenants.

Viewings already booked for the weekend could not be confirmed or moved.

One agent told us that access was briefly restored after contacting the company and pointing to appointments already in the diary.

No other HMO platform

Other letting agents reported the same disruption, although most declined to be named.

One said: “If this were any other platform, we’d just move on. But you can’t. There’s nowhere else to go. So you just keep your head down and hope it’s not you next time.”

The issue centres on the platform’s prohibition on automated activity.

Its terms allow accounts to be suspended or terminated at its discretion and, at the same time, rule out tools designed to streamline responses or manage enquiries.

RRA impact for agents

In practice, agents say those tools are now part of daily operations, particularly with administrative pressure increasing ahead of the Renters’ Rights Act.

Larger operators, especially those with multiple staff, rely on them to schedule replies and organise viewings at scale.

The tool referenced in the suspensions is Nestflo, used by HMO agents to handle enquiries and bookings.

Its founder, Roland Tao, said the move came as a surprise.

He told Property118: “We built Nestflo to help agents work more efficiently. Faster responses to applicants, viewings booked sooner, fewer people left waiting to hear back.

“The tool operates across a number of platforms, and we have never had an issue of this kind before. We thought we were being careful.”

Issue over demand claim

He also questioned the figures included in SpareRoom’s emails, which stated that Nestflo had generated more than 300,000 requests within a 24-hour period.

He said: “We’re a much smaller company than SpareRoom. I’d expect our infrastructure to be significantly smaller than theirs.

“Handling that volume of requests would have caused us serious problems of our own.

“We’ve reviewed our logs and we have not experienced any issues of that kind.”

Some agents said they had not realised the full extent of the platform’s restrictions.

Others pointed to similar episodes in previous years, where accounts were suspended over tools that had been in routine use.

For agents managing large portfolios, even a short suspension feeds directly into pipeline delays and landlord relationships.

Site infrastructure under strain

SpareRoom said it acted to protect performance across the site and a statement, it told us: “We understand the need for automation but, in this case, a small group of users were using a particular bit of third party software that put a huge strain on site infrastructure.

“Had it continued, it could have resulted in site-wide performance issues for all SpareRoom users.

“We therefore took action to suspend the accounts responsible in order to protect the site.

“Now the situation has been resolved, all the accounts have been reactivated.”

SpareRoom access restored

While access may have been restored, agents say they have removed automation tools and returned to manual processes.

An industry insider said: “Whilst accounts may have been activated, we still have zero allowance of using any tools to help automate the business, and we are struggling now with a load of manual work that we previously had automated.

“Things like replying to tenants asking, ‘Is this still available?’, to let them know it is, and provide information on how to arrange a viewing now take much more time.

“There have been discussions as to whether developing in-house tools could help with automation, but the risk that SpareRoom will ban the account now without question has made this a risk.

“Whilst SpareRoom says ‘a small number’, it’s understood the number is 50+ of some of the biggest professional agencies.

“Arguably, that’s one or two per large city. If they have 500 rooms, that’s at least 25,000 rooms affected.”

The post EXCLUSIVE: SpareRoom suspends HMO agents over automation tool use appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: EXCLUSIVE: SpareRoom suspends HMO agents over automation tool use

Landlords accused of rushing evictions ahead of Renters’ Rights Act

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlords accused of rushing evictions ahead of Renters’ Rights Act

Charities claim an eviction surge is under way as landlords rush to evict tenants before the Renters’ Rights Act takes effect.

Tenant group Acorn told the Guardian that Section 21 evictions accounted for one in five reports from members in October, rising to nearly one in three by January.

The news comes ahead the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force on 1 May 2026.

Landlords exploiting this thin window

A spokesperson from Acorn told the Guardian: “This isn’t a coincidence. Landlords are clearly rushing to force through last-minute evictions before the ban comes into force.”

The housing charity Shelter also accused landlords of exploiting tenants.

A spokesperson told the Guardian: “It’s especially outrageous that some landlords are exploiting this thin window of time to serve no-fault evictions. It just goes to show how vital these new changes are for renters.”

A lawyer also told the paper he was seeing long-term tenants shocked by unexpected Section 21 notices.

Hugh Wilkinson, head of housing at the Central England Law Centre, said: “It can be quite upsetting for people. To think that they’ve been there for a long time and that the length of time doesn’t make any difference. The court won’t take into account the fairness of it.”

Landlords weighing up the risks

The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) defended landlords saying many weighing up the risks and benefits of continuing tenancies.

Meera Chindooroy, deputy director for campaigns for the NRLA, told the Guardian: “Landlords will be looking at their current tenants and considering whether these are tenancies that they are happy to continue with after May, or whether they have concerns about any risks, rent arrears, for example, or issues with antisocial behaviour.”

As previously reported on Property118, data analysed by the NRLA shows that Section 21 (‘accelerated’) possession claims in the county courts have dropped to their lowest level in several years.

According to government data, in 2025, 28,112 possession claims were brought to the county courts in England following the issuing of Section 21 notice to a tenant (known as the ‘accelerated’ procedure), the lowest level since 2022.

In the final quarter of 2025 (when the Renters’ Rights Act formally completed its passage through Parliament) 6,367 claims were brought under the Section 21 route. This is the lowest number since the final quarter of 2022.

The post Landlords accused of rushing evictions ahead of Renters’ Rights Act appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlords accused of rushing evictions ahead of Renters’ Rights Act