Cleaning tops tenancy deposit claims for fifth year running

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Cleaning tops tenancy deposit claims for fifth year running

Cleaning was the biggest reason for tenancy deposit claims in 2025, accounting for 29.38% of claims handled by The Deposit Protection Service (The DPS).

It says this is the fifth consecutive year the issue has topped of their list.

However, the proportion has risen each year since 2021, when cleaning was cited in 24.57% of claims.

It increased to 26.72% in 2022, 27.70% in 2023 and 28.66% in 2024.

Tenants understand obligations

The managing director of The DPS, Matt Trevett, said: “It’s interesting to see that the reasons behind deductions have remained fairly consistent during the last five years.

“We encourage tenants to make sure they understand their obligations whenever they leave a property – and landlords to communicate clearly around expectations at the end of a tenancy.”

He added: “Less than 5% of all deposits protected by The DPS end in a dispute.

“And, if a tenant and landlord cannot agree on deductions, our impartial free-to-use dispute resolution service makes sure tenancies are settled fairly.”

Making reasonable deductions

Landlords can seek reasonable deductions from a tenant’s deposit to cover costs arising during the tenancy.

Damage was the second most common reason for a claim last year, accounting for 18.42%.

That figure has also climbed steadily, from 14.60% in 2021 to 16.68% in 2022, 17.70% in 2023 and 18.16% in 2024.

Rent arrears followed at 16.45% of claims.

Arrears deductions fall

Unlike cleaning and damage, the proportion attributed to arrears has fallen since reaching 19.74% in 2022.

Arrears accounted for 17.71% of claims in 2021, 18.74% in 2023 and 17.31% in 2024 before dropping again last year.

Redecoration was cited in 10.88% of claims in 2025, up from 7.48% five years earlier.

The DPS said redecoration-related claims had increased by 3.40 percentage points between 2021 and 2025.

Claims classified under ‘other reasons’ fell sharply across the same period, from 26.30% in 2021 to 13.31% last year.

The post Cleaning tops tenancy deposit claims for fifth year running appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Cleaning tops tenancy deposit claims for fifth year running

The landlord’s tenant pet request response window is 28 days — Not 42

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

The landlord’s tenant pet request response window is 28 days — Not 42

Several published landlord guides are stating the wrong timeframe for responding to tenant pet requests under the Renters’ Rights Act.

The correct answer is 28 days.

Here is what the law says, why the 42-day figure is wrong, and what landlords need to do.

Where the 42-day figure came from

The 42-day window does not appear in the Renters’ Rights Act as enacted.

It appears to have originated from an earlier draft of the Bill as it passed through Parliament, where a longer period was proposed and subsequently amended before Royal Assent.

The final Act — section 11, which inserts new section 16A into the Housing Act 1988 — is clear.

A landlord who receives a written pet request must respond in writing within 28 days.

What happens if you miss the deadline?

Missing the 28-day window has two immediate consequences.

First, deemed consent.

If you fail to respond within 28 days, the request is treated as having been granted. You cannot reverse this.

The tenant is entitled to keep the pet regardless of your views on it.

Second, enforcement.

Local housing authorities have investigation and civil penalty powers under the Act.

Penalties for non-compliance can reach £7,000 for a first breach.

A landlord who has read that the window is 42 days and responds on day 35 has already breached the Act and lost the right to refuse.

The correct process

The pet request process under section 16A is straightforward if you follow it properly.

• Step 1: Receive the request in writing. The tenant must submit their request in writing and include a description of the pet. An email counts. A verbal request does not start the clock.
• Step 2: Date-stamp it immediately. The 28-day countdown begins from the date of receipt, not the date you read it. Log it the same day it arrives.
• Step 3: Acknowledge receipt in writing the same day. This protects you if there is ever a dispute about when the request arrived.
• Step 4: Assess the request. Check your lease for freeholder restrictions. Consider whether the property is genuinely suitable for the pet described. This is not a decision you can make once and apply to all tenants — each request must be considered individually.
• Step 5: Respond in writing within 28 days. Your response must be one of three things: consent, consent with conditions, or refusal with specific documented reasons.

Can you refuse?

Yes — but only on specific grounds.

A blanket ‘no pets’ policy is no longer enforceable under the Act.

Valid grounds for refusal include a freeholder or superior lease restriction that prohibits pets, genuine unsuitability of the property for the specific animal requested, or a building management restriction that applies to all occupiers.

Refusal based on a general preference or policy is not valid.

The reasons must be specific and documented in writing.

Can you add conditions?

Yes. Granting consent with conditions is permitted and is generally the most defensible approach.

The most common condition is requiring the tenant to maintain pet damage insurance throughout the tenancy.

Note that charging a higher deposit specifically for pets remains prohibited under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 — insurance is the correct mechanism.

Extensions to the 28-day window

There are limited circumstances where the deadline can be extended.

If you need further information from the tenant, for example, details about the breed or size of the animal — you can request this within the 28 days.

You then have 7 days from receiving that information to respond.

If the property is leasehold and you need freeholder consent before you can respond, you must apply to the freeholder within the 28-day window.

You then have 7 days from receiving the freeholder’s decision to respond to your tenant.

Practical checklist

• Set up a dedicated email address or folder for pet requests so none get missed
• Diarise day 25 as your response deadline — give yourself a three-day buffer
• Keep every piece of correspondence: the request, your acknowledgment, your assessment notes, your response
• If refusing, be specific — vague refusals are more likely to be challenged at tribunal.

The bottom line

The 28-day window is strict. Deemed consent cannot be reversed.

If you are using a template pack or compliance guide that states 42 days, check it now — and check any response letters it provides reference the correct timeframe.

For more information about landlords’ tenant pet requests under the Renters’ Rights Act, visit the DocPilot website for more information.

David Osborne is the founder of DocPilot, which provides UK legal document templates updated for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and Employment Rights Act 2025.

The post The landlord’s tenant pet request response window is 28 days — Not 42 appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: The landlord’s tenant pet request response window is 28 days — Not 42

Why rent controls are the wrong answer to a housing shortage

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Why rent controls are the wrong answer to a housing shortage

Oh, dear, another week and another call for rent controls.

This time it’s the turn of Generation Rent, which has published an article asking what rent control in England could look like.

We’ve already had three prominent think tanks, including the New Economics Foundation, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), release blueprints for capping rents in England in the last few weeks.

Let’s not forget that in April, the Treasury was reportedly considering a 12-month rent freeze.

All landlords should read the article, not because it offers a sensible solution to the rent crisis, but because it reveals the central flaw in the rent control argument.

Cap tenant rents

The pitch to the public sounds simple and compassionate: cap rents to protect tenants from soaring costs.

But as anyone running a property portfolio knows, capping the price of a commodity without fixing the underlying shortage is an economic delusion.

To understand why rent controls are nonsense, you only need to look at basic supply and demand.

The reason rents have risen across England is a historic failure to build homes to meet rocketing demand.

Nobody serious about housing policy should pretend that affordability is not a problem.

But that’s not the fault of landlords – it would take a very big pair of rose-tinted glasses to suggest otherwise.

Here is the big problem for landlords.

The ‘between-tenancy’ caps favoured by all three think tanks mean that when a tenant moves out, the landlord is forbidden from adjusting the rent to market value.

It must remain locked to an arbitrary index like CPI or wage growth.

That sounds great if you ignore institutional builders and individual landlords who would see the financial viability of investing in new housing stock disappear.

Why risk capital on building a block of flats or upgrading a terrace house when your long-term yield is artificially suppressed below the true cost of maintenance, mortgage interest and inflation?

You wouldn’t. And, I suspect, neither would the charlatans in the think tanks if they had to spend their own cash.

Don’t look to Scotland

The Generation Rent article points to Scotland as a model, but Scotland should be treated as a warning, not a blueprint.

When emergency rent caps were introduced in 2022, there was a dramatic reduction in available rental properties.

It also forced major build-to-rent developers to pull out of schemes in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

When landlords face capped revenues alongside rising regulatory costs, higher interest rates, and the removal of mortgage interest tax relief, the rational response is simple: they sell up.

Once the government begins interfering with prices, landlords adapt.

Some raise rents more regularly up to the permitted limit and some will leave the sector.

Other landlords will become more cautious about who they accept as tenants.

The people most likely to lose out are often those already facing the greatest difficulty finding a home.

Rent control problem

Before Labour ministers reach for another PRS intervention, they should allow the Renters’ Rights Act to bed in because the private rented sector needs confidence.

The country cannot afford to drive out responsible landlords while still failing to build enough homes.

A serious answer to high rents would focus on supply, planning, tax, court capacity and keeping good landlords in the market.

It would target help at tenants who need support without pretending that price controls can magic new homes into existence.

Renters are right to be angry about unaffordable housing.

Put simply, rent control will not solve the housing shortage; it will simply make the shortage cheaper for some and much worse for everyone else.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader

The post Why rent controls are the wrong answer to a housing shortage appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why rent controls are the wrong answer to a housing shortage

Councils to fine landlords £7,000 per hazard under new health and safety rules

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Councils to fine landlords £7,000 per hazard under new health and safety rules

Landlords could face on-the-spot fines of £7,000 for each hazard found in a property and a £40,000 civil penalty for failing to remedy the issue and continuing to breach the new health and safety standards.

The government has announced changes to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which will come into force on 23 June.

The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) has urged landlords to carry out regular inspections of their properties to make sure they are hazard-free.

Health and safety risks

The HHSRS system is used by local authorities in England and Wales to assess potential health and safety risks in homes.

The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) explains on its website that, under new rules introduced through the Renters’ Rights Act, any hazard identified during a local authority inspection will now be categorised as high, medium or low risk, replacing the more complex A–J rating system.

High-risk hazards, known as Category 1 hazards, will continue to trigger a council’s duty to take enforcement action against landlords, although councils will retain discretion over how they deal with medium- and low-risk hazards, known as Category 2 hazards.

The NRLA says that while the list of hazards is not changing, some categories are being merged. These include Falls on the Level, which covers falls associated with toilets, baths and showers, as well as trip hazards and falls on level surfaces, and Fire and Explosions, which covers exposure to uncontrolled fire, smoke and fumes, and explosions.

Range of factors to decide fines

Under draft guidance published by the government, councils will be able to fine landlords £7,000 per Category One hazard identified, or opt to impose a single £7,000 civil penalty for multiple breaches.

In the guidance, it explains that councils can decide the level of fines by assessing a range of factors, but that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The guidance says: “Local housing authorities need to have a policy basis to guide their decisions on when to issue a civil penalty.

“Each decision is to be considered on a case-by-case basis in line with that policy. Civil penalties under section 6A of the Act can only be imposed when, in the opinion of the local housing authority, it would have been reasonably practicable for the responsible person to secure the removal of the hazard.

Factors that a local housing authority should take into account when determining whether removal would have been reasonably practicable include:

• how long the responsible person has known about the existence of the hazard;
• whether practical steps could have been taken to remedy the hazard without disproportionate expense or disruption;
• what steps the responsible person has taken to remove the hazard or reduce its impact, including any efforts made to secure the services of specialist tradespeople;
• whether permission from other parties is needed to remove the hazard and the steps the responsible person has taken to secure that permission; and
• whether tenants have provided access to the property in order for remedial works to be carried out.

Landlords must carry out inspections

The NRLA is urging landlords to document safety checks and inspect properties regularly to comply with the new health and safety regulations.

The industry body says on its website: “If landlords are complying with all current health and safety guidance under the HHSRS, landlords don’t need to do anything fundamentally different.

“However, landlords must continue to carry out regular inspections of their properties to make sure they are hazard-free and safe for tenants to live in.

“Documenting these, and other safety checks, is also essential when it comes to proving landlords are taking their health and safety responsibilities seriously.

“Landlords should also be sure to log and action any reports or complaints from tenants when it comes to potential hazards and keep a record of any remedial work carried out by themselves or tradespeople.”

The post Councils to fine landlords £7,000 per hazard under new health and safety rules appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Councils to fine landlords £7,000 per hazard under new health and safety rules

The RRA’s ‘unintended consequences’ for landlords and tenants

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

The RRA’s ‘unintended consequences’ for landlords and tenants

Landlords watching the unfolding impact of the Renters’ Rights Act, now have another reason to look closely at London, where falling supply is already being linked to higher rents.

Tom Bill, the head of UK research at Knight Frank, says the reforms should act as ‘a cautionary tale for policymakers’ because economic policy can create consequences ministers did not intend.

He argues that the Act was brought in to shift the balance of power towards tenants, covering rent-setting, repossession, restrictions on selling and pets.

However, Mr Bill says the risk is that ministers have gone too far after landlords became ‘a useful target for politicians in recent years due to the unscrupulous actions of a small minority’.

More landlords have sold

Mr Bill said: “There were no votes in also stating that a small minority of tenants were problematic.”

Knight Frank says more landlords have sold up since the Act’s introduction, cutting supply and adding pressure to rents in many parts of London.

The property consultancy says that average rents in prime outer London rose by 3.2% in the year to May.

That’s the strongest annual increase since June 2024, when rents were still easing back from pandemic-era highs.

Month-on-month growth in prime outer London reached 0.5%, the highest figure since September 2023.

Rents go up

Prime central London saw a smaller annual rise of 1%, with supply less constrained in higher-value markets.

The firm says that’s down to owners letting homes while the sales market remains weak.

Rightmove data highlighted by Knight Frank shows new rent listings in prime central and prime outer London were 13% below the five-year average in May.

They are also 11% lower than the same month last year.

Tenant demand rises

Knight Frank says there were six new prospective tenants for every new rent property coming onto the market last month, the highest ratio since September 2022.

The Act follows a series of changes affecting landlords, including higher stamp duty rates and the ending of tax breaks.

Mr Bill says a future requirement for homes to reach EPC C could become another deterrent for buy to let investors.

He points to political pressure around tax as another issue for landlords.

Don’t squeeze landlord margins

Mr Bill says politicians wanting to increase CGT would squeeze landlords’ margins further and put rents up.

He also notes that HMRC believes a 10-percentage point increase in CGT would cost the exchequer £6 billion over three years, according to a recent Bloomberg report.

Mr Bill says other areas of the economy are also being drawn into political arguments as Labour figures jostle for position.

He cites calls for supermarkets to cap food prices and accusations of petrol retailers ‘price gouging’ during energy price spikes as examples of policies shaped by vote-winning pressure rather than economic argument.

The post The RRA’s ‘unintended consequences’ for landlords and tenants appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: The RRA’s ‘unintended consequences’ for landlords and tenants

Stuck between a rock and a hard place when selling a tenanted property?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Stuck between a rock and a hard place when selling a tenanted property?

Since Section 21 was abolished on 1 May 2026, there have been huge increases in the number of landlords searching for information about evicting tenants using Section 8.

Many have convinced themselves they only have two options: keep the property and hope things improve, or evict the tenant before trying to sell, but the problem is that neither option is necessarily as straightforward as it first appears.

The “I’ll just wait until the tenant leaves” strategy can be risky

A surprising number of landlords are effectively doing nothing, they’re concerned about compliance and worried about the future, but reluctant to sell because they assume nobody will buy a tenanted property, so instead they decide to wait, hoping the tenant will leave voluntarily, the market will improve, or the government will change course.

Many do not seem to realise that a landlord who intends to sell “eventually” still needs to remain fully compliant in the meantime.

Sitting tight may feel like a safe option, but in today’s environment, it can be anything but. Tenants are being encouraged to scrutinise their landlords more closely than ever, councils are inviting reports of potential breaches, and a property that appears manageable today can quickly become a source of complaints, enforcement action or compensation claims tomorrow.

Eviction is too slow and a minefield of compliance issues

Section 8 can be a lengthy process, and for many landlords, it is less an exit strategy and more a compliance obstacle course. One mistake with the notice, supporting evidence or court process can derail a possession claim, while landlords who push too hard risk complaints about harassment or improper conduct.

Even if everything goes to plan, regaining possession can take many months and, in some cases, well over a year, which is hardly ideal for landlords trying to reduce risk in an increasingly hostile regulatory environment.

Also, serving a possession notice doesn’t remove a landlord’s ongoing obligations, so if a tenant raises genuine concerns about property condition, safety issues or compliance breaches, those issues may still need to be addressed.

The win, win, win solution – An agreed solution or voluntary surrender

Many landlords facing issues such as missing paperwork, below-market rents, licensing complications or other compliance concerns convince themselves they have no option but to wait for their tenants to leave because they fear any attempt to regain possession could become a lengthy and uncertain legal process. At Landlord Sales Agency, rather than trying to navigate around these problems, we tackle them head on.

One landlord came to us recently with a tenant whose rent had not been increased for years and was significantly below market value. The landlord had had enough of the PRS and wanted out, they didn’t want to raise the rent, or wait for the tenant to leave or to evict the tenant. In short, they wanted to leave but they thought every option presented its own set of problems – they were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We found a cash buyer looking for turnkey investments from our database of 30,000   investors, owner occupiers and new landlords then got to work making sure the deal worked for everyone.

Unlike any other company selling tenanted properties, we speak to tenants and quickly established they were willing to pay more rent to stay in situ. We mediated negotiations between the tenant and incoming buyer to establish a new rent that everyone would be comfortable with from the start of the new landlord’s ownership.

Crucially, that was only possible because all parties trusted us as an impartial broker. They understood that our role was not to take sides or pursue our own agenda, but simply to find a practical solution that honestly worked for everyone involved.

The tenant kept their home, the buyer acquired a viable investment at a sensible yield, and the seller achieved the clean exit they wanted. A genuine win-win-win for all concerned.

But it didn’t stop there, the buyer wanted to complete in 28 days once their offer was accepted. Landlord sales Agency chased solicitors, answered their queries and solved any issue anyone threw their way to make it happen, just as requested.

We know that sellers don’t complete transactions, buyers do. That’s why we put so much emphasis on looking after buyers throughout the process, helping them solve problems, stay engaged and reach completion, because when buyers are happy, our sellers are far more likely to achieve the outcome they want.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place? Landlord Sales Agency helps landlords take back control

The abolition of Section 21 has undoubtedly changed the landscape, and for some landlords, eviction will still be the correct route – but for many others, it may simply be the most expensive, stressful and time-consuming route.

David Coughlin, CEO Landlord Sales Agency says, “The Renters’ Rights Act has changed the process, but it hasn’t stopped us selling properties. Most successful sales come down to finding practical solutions that work for the buyer, seller and tenant. Every tenanted property we have sold since May 1st has either been sold with the tenant remaining in situ, or the tenant has left after voluntarily agreeing a Deed of Surrender.”

If you’re holding onto a property because you think tenants, licensing issues, compliance concerns or below-market rents make it impossible to sell, don’t make the mistake of assuming eviction is your only option.

Every week we help landlords solve problems that other agents won’t even touch, finding practical solutions that work for sellers, buyers and tenants alike.

Before you spend months navigating Section 8, court delays and ongoing compliance risks, speak to Landlord Sales Agency and discover what your options really are. You may be far closer to taking back control than you think.

Contact us today using the form below for a free, no obligation chat to find out what we can do for you.

(function(){
var uid = “crm-form-ba09a29b”;
var form = document.getElementById(uid + ‘-form’);
var wrap = document.getElementById(uid);
var msg = wrap.querySelector(‘.crm-message’);
var totalPages = 1;
var curPage = 0;

// ── Conditional logic ────────────────────────────────────────────────
var condMap = {};

function getFieldValue(fieldId) {
var els = form.querySelectorAll(‘[name=”‘ + fieldId + ‘”], [name=”‘ + fieldId + ‘[]”]’);
if (!els.length) return ”;
var first = els[0];
if (first.type === ‘checkbox’ || first.type === ‘radio’) {
var checked = [];
els.forEach(function(el){ if (el.checked) checked.push(el.value); });
return checked.join(‘,’);
}
return first.value;
}

function evalRule(rule) {
var val = getFieldValue(rule.fieldId);
var cmp = rule.value;
switch (rule.operator) {
case ‘is': return val === cmp;
case ‘isnot': return val !== cmp;
case ‘greaterthan': return parseFloat(val) > parseFloat(cmp);
case ‘lessthan': return parseFloat(val) < parseFloat(cmp);
case 'contains': return val.indexOf(cmp) !== -1;
case 'startswith': return val.indexOf(cmp) === 0;
case 'endswith': return val.slice(-cmp.length) === cmp;
default: return false; // fail closed — mirror the CRM shared matcher
}
}

function applyConditionals() {
Object.keys(condMap).forEach(function(fieldId) {
var cond = condMap[fieldId];
var rules = cond.rules || [];
var match = cond.logicType === 'any'
? rules.some(evalRule)
: rules.every(evalRule);
var show = cond.actionType === 'show' ? match : !match;
var wrapper = form.querySelector('[data-field-id="' + fieldId + '"]');
if (!wrapper) {
var el = form.querySelector('[name="' + fieldId + '"], [name="' + fieldId + '[]"]');
if (el) wrapper = el.closest('.crm-field, .crm-half');
}
if (wrapper) wrapper.style.display = show ? '' : 'none';
});
}

form.addEventListener('change', applyConditionals);
form.addEventListener('input', applyConditionals);
applyConditionals();

// ── Multi-page navigation ────────────────────────────────────────────

// ── Submit ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
var submitBtn = form.querySelector('button[type=submit]');
var btnText = submitBtn ? submitBtn.textContent : 'Submit';

var crmApiUrl = "https://p118-crm-api.accent.sh";

function collectFormData() {
var data = {};
for (var j = 0; j < form.elements.length; j++) {
var el = form.elements[j];
if (!el.name) continue;
if (el.type === 'file') continue; // handled by uploadFiles()
if (el.type === 'radio' && !el.checked) continue;
if (el.type === 'checkbox') {
if (!el.checked) continue;
var k = el.name.replace('[]','');
data[k] = data[k] ? data[k].concat([el.value]) : [el.value];
} else {
data[el.name] = el.value;
}
}
// GF auto-substituted {user_agent} / {referer} on hidden fields
// at render time. We do the equivalent right before submit so
// fields whose default value carries these placeholders
// resolve to the browser's actual values rather than being
// stored as literal "{user_agent}" / "{referer}" strings.
// The last ARTICLE the visitor read (set client-side on post views by
// P118_Article_Views). Used to attribute the enquiry to the article
// even after navigating away or with a stripped/absent referer.
var lastPost = '';
try {
var lpm = document.cookie.match(/(?:^|;s*)p118_last_post=([^;]+)/);
if (lpm) lastPost = decodeURIComponent(lpm[1]);
} catch (e) {}
var subs = {
'{user_agent}': navigator.userAgent || '',
// Prefer the last article read; fall back to the (lossy) HTTP referer.
'{referer}': lastPost || document.referrer || '',
'{last_post}': lastPost || '',
'{embed_url}': window.location.href || '',
};
for (var name in data) {
if (!data.hasOwnProperty(name)) continue;
var v = data[name];
if (typeof v !== 'string') continue;
for (var tag in subs) {
if (v.indexOf(tag) !== -1) v = v.split(tag).join(subs[tag]);
}
data[name] = v;
}
// Agent/BDM attribution — read LIVE so it works even on a fully cached
// page (the browser always sees the real URL + cookie). URL ?ataid=/?cid=
// first, then the 30-day agent_id/cid cookies set by atat-tracking.php.
var _qp = new URLSearchParams(window.location.search);
var _ataid = _qp.get('ataid') || (document.cookie.match(/(?:^|;s*)agent_id=([^;]+)/) || [])[1] || '';
var _cid = _qp.get('cid') || (document.cookie.match(/(?:^|;s*)cid=([^;]+)/) || [])[1] || '';
if (_ataid) data.agent_id = decodeURIComponent(_ataid);
if (_cid) data.bdm_id = decodeURIComponent(_cid);
return data;
}

function uploadFiles(data) {
var fileInputs = form.querySelectorAll('input[type=file][data-crm-file-field]');
var uploads = [];
fileInputs.forEach(function(el) {
if (!el.files || !el.files[0]) return;
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append('file', el.files[0]);
var fieldName = el.name;
uploads.push(
fetch(crmApiUrl + '/public/forms/' + "08ceeaae-4809-444e-ba0f-88da5836c463" + '/upload', { method: 'POST', body: fd })
.then(function(r) {
if (!r.ok) throw new Error('File upload failed (' + r.status + ')');
return r.json();
})
.then(function(res) {
if (res.path) data[fieldName] = res.path;
else throw new Error(res.error || 'File upload failed');
})
);
});
return Promise.all(uploads).then(function() { return data; });
}

function submitFormData(data) {
var body = new FormData();
body.append('action', 'p118_crm_submit');
body.append('form_id', "08ceeaae-4809-444e-ba0f-88da5836c463");
body.append('data', JSON.stringify(data));
// Embed-page context for GF-style merge tags ({embed_url},
// {embed_post:post_title}, {embed_post:ID}). Captured PHP-side
// at render time, then echoed to JS so the submit fetch can
// forward to V2 as request headers.
body.append('embed_url', "");
body.append('embed_post_id', "0");
body.append('embed_post_title', "");

return fetch("https://www.property118.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php", { method: 'POST', body: body, credentials: 'same-origin' })
.then(function(r){ return r.json(); })
.then(function(res){
var p = res.data || res;
if (p && p.success) {
if (p.confirmationType === 'redirect' && p.confirmationRedirectUrl) {
window.location.href = p.confirmationRedirectUrl;
} else {
form.style.display = 'none';
msg.className = 'crm-message success';
msg.innerHTML = p.confirmationMessage || 'Thank you for your submission.';
msg.style.display = 'block';
}
} else {
throw new Error((p && p.error) || 'Submission failed.');
}
});
}

form.addEventListener('submit', function(e){
e.preventDefault();
var data = collectFormData();
if (submitBtn) { submitBtn.disabled = true; submitBtn.textContent = 'Processing…'; }
msg.style.display = 'none';

// Standard form (no payment)
uploadFiles(data)
.then(function(d) { return submitFormData(d); })
.catch(function(err){
if (submitBtn) { submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = btnText; }
msg.className = 'crm-message error';
msg.textContent = err.message;
msg.style.display = 'block';
});
});
})();

The post Stuck between a rock and a hard place when selling a tenanted property? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Stuck between a rock and a hard place when selling a tenanted property?

House prices rise 1.6% as London falls – e.surv

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

House prices rise 1.6% as London falls – e.surv

The latest e.surv report puts the average house price in Great Britain at £327,400, up 1.6% on a year ago.

Its House Price Index reveals that prices have risen 0.2% over the month and 0.4% over the quarter.

Yorkshire and the Humber is the strongest-performing region, with average prices up 3.6% year on year to £235,800.

It has moved ahead of Scotland, which led the table last month.

Home buyers are cautious

The report states: “Higher mortgage rates have made buying more expensive, but the pressure is not evenly spread.

“Mortgage costs take up a much larger share of income in London and the South East than in lower-priced regions.

“Activity remains subdued, but there is little evidence of borrower distress.”

It adds: “Low arrears and repossessions suggest most existing borrowers are coping with higher rates.

“The main drag is buyer caution and affordability, not forced sales.”

Regional house price rises

The data also shows that the North West rose 3.5% to £248,600, Scotland was up 3.3% to £226,100, and Wales increased 3.2% to £236,100.

The West Midlands also remained ahead of the GB average, with prices up 3.1% to £278,700.

The East Midlands recorded annual growth of 2.6% to £265,500.

London was the only region where prices were lower than a year earlier.

The average price in the capital stood at £588,300, down 4.0% annually, although prices rose slightly over the month and quarter.

Southern England continued to lag behind the national figure. Prices were up 1.3% in the South West, 0.9% in the East of England, and 0.3% in the South East.

Wage growth helps

Wage growth has improved some headline affordability measures with average weekly earnings rising risen 8.5% since April 2024.

That compares with 6.4% for CPI and 2.9% for GB house prices.

However, household costs have also risen sharply over the same period.

Food and non-alcoholic drinks are up 6.6%, restaurants and hotels 7.3%, transport 8.0%, energy bills 9.3%, and phones and broadband 10.5%.

e.surv expects house prices to rise year-on-year in the near term, but says growth is likely to remain modest.

The post House prices rise 1.6% as London falls – e.surv appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: House prices rise 1.6% as London falls – e.surv

Affordable areas see fastest rent rises as supply stays tight

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Affordable areas see fastest rent rises as supply stays tight

Landlords with homes in cheaper rent markets are seeing some of the sharpest rises in the country, even as rent growth slows across much of the UK.

Zoopla’s latest Rental Market Report says rents in areas where average monthly rents are £750 or less are rising by 5% a year.

That’s more than twice the UK average of 2.1%.

The fastest increases include Carlisle, where rents are up 9.1%, Kilmarnock at 9%, and Halifax at 6.5%.

Those rises are coming from a lower base, with average rents in those markets still around £700 a month and 45% to 50% below the UK average.

Rental gap is closing

Richard Donnell, an executive director at Zoopla, said: “We’re seeing a split in how different regions and cities are responding to changes in the supply and demand for rented homes.

“Our latest report shows just how fast the gap in rents is closing between more affordable regions and major cities where rents are highest.

“Rent inflation is more subdued across most of the UKs major cities due to already stretched affordability levels for renters.”

He added: “While demand for renting is at its lowest level for six years, low levels of new investment in private rented housing means an ongoing scarcity of homes for rent which is keeping an upward pressure on rents.”

Where rents fell

Higher-cost centres are seeing weaker growth, and in some cases falls.

Bournemouth rents are down 1.7%, Nottingham is down 1.5%, and Birmingham has recorded a 1.1% fall.

Nationally, annual rent inflation has eased to 2.1%, down from 2.6% last April.

Average earnings are rising by 4%, meaning wage growth has now outpaced rent growth for 18 months.

Fewer homes to rent

However, supply remains well below pre-pandemic levels and Zoopla says every UK region and country has 20% to 30% fewer homes available to rent than before the pandemic.

The average number of enquiries per rented home reached 5.6 per listing in May 2026, the lowest level for six years and down from almost 16 in 2022.

London is the main exception with demand up 6% year on year, while the number of homes available to rent has not changed.

Rent inflation in London has risen to 2.2%, from 1.9% a year earlier, with the average rent now £2,206 a month.

Zoopla expects rent inflation to remain between 2% and 3% over the rest of 2026.

Tenant demand outstrips stock

Propertymark’s chief executive, Nathan Emerson, said: “In many areas where rents have traditionally been lower, demand remains strong and limited housing supply is pushing prices upwards at a faster rate than the national average.

“The underlying issue remains a chronic shortage of rental supply.

“Propertymark’s own member data consistently shows that prospective tenant demand continues to outstrip available stock, and despite some easing in competition, there are still far too few homes available to meet housing need.

“This is particularly evident in lower-cost locations where renters often have fewer alternatives and less flexibility when prices rise.”

The post Affordable areas see fastest rent rises as supply stays tight appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Affordable areas see fastest rent rises as supply stays tight

What recent Trustpilot reviews reveal about the challenges landlords are facing

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

What recent Trustpilot reviews reveal about the challenges landlords are facing

One of the most interesting aspects of running Property118 is that we speak to landlords at every stage of their journey.

Some are still actively acquiring properties. Others are reducing debt, selling selected assets, planning for retirement or thinking about how to pass wealth to the next generation. What often surprises me, though, is that regardless of portfolio size, many conversations begin in exactly the same way.

“I don’t know what to do for the best.”

That uncertainty has become increasingly common over the last few years. Taxation has changed. Regulation has increased. Borrowing costs are higher than many landlords became accustomed to during the era of ultra-low interest rates. At the same time, many portfolios have become highly valuable on paper whilst producing relatively modest levels of income relative to the equity tied up within them.

Against that backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that more landlords are seeking a second opinion before making major decisions.

Several recent Trustpilot reviews provide an interesting insight into the type of conversations taking place during Property118 consultations and, more importantly, the value that landlords appear to derive from them.

One reviewer, who described themselves as owning a portfolio of four buy-to-let properties, explained that the portfolio was not delivering the level of return he had originally expected when they purchased the properties.

After speaking with me, they wrote: “Jonathan’s thoughts and insight were excellent. He drew on his experience to help me look at the situation from a completely different angle, which was exactly what I needed. It genuinely felt like a lightbulb moment.”

That phrase, “a completely different angle”, struck a chord with me because it reflects something we see regularly.

Many landlords spend years focusing on acquisition strategies, financing structures, tax changes and operational issues. What they rarely do is step back and ask whether the portfolio they have today is still capable of delivering the lifestyle, retirement income or legacy they originally intended it to provide.

Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes the answer is no.

Either way, clarity tends to emerge once somebody challenges the assumptions that have been driving previous decisions.

Another recent reviewer highlighted a different aspect of the consultancy process.

Writing about their consultation, they commented: “Jonathan was extremely thorough and explained everything clearly. He was able to zoom out and examine all the moving parts of the different businesses whilst also providing the reasons and steps required to make changes and restructure.”

This review highlights an issue that many landlords face as their affairs become more complex.

A property portfolio rarely exists in isolation. It often sits alongside trading businesses, pensions, family considerations, inheritance planning objectives and existing borrowing arrangements.

Decisions made in one area can create opportunities or problems somewhere else.

Looking at one piece of the puzzle without considering the wider picture can sometimes produce the wrong answer.

What many landlords really need is not another product recommendation or another opinion on interest rates. They need somebody to help them understand how all the moving parts interact and what consequences may follow from different courses of action.

A third reviewer described a consultation with Property118 consultant Swati in much simpler terms:

“I had an incredibly helpful meeting with Swati and felt under no pressure but very enlightened by the end of it.”

The review itself is brief, but the words “under no pressure” are particularly important.

Landlords are naturally sceptical when approaching advisers because they worry that every conversation is ultimately leading towards a sales pitch. That concern is understandable. Most people have experienced situations where advice appears to be driven by the solution somebody wants to sell rather than the problem they are trying to solve.

The purpose of a Property118 consultation is different.

The objective is not to persuade landlords to adopt a particular strategy. The objective is to help them understand the options available to them and the implications of those options. Sometimes that leads to further work. Sometimes it does not. What matters is that the landlord leaves the conversation with a clearer understanding of their position than they had beforehand.

When I look across these reviews, despite the very different circumstances of the individuals involved, a common theme emerges.

• None of the reviewers praise a product.
• None of them focus on tax savings.
• None of them talk about sophisticated structures.
• Instead, they talk about clarity, perspective, understanding and confidence.

Perhaps that should not be surprising.

Most landlords are perfectly capable of making decisions once they understand the available options. The real challenge is often identifying those options in the first place and understanding which are most closely aligned with their personal objectives.

For many landlords today, that may be the most valuable service of all.

LEARN MORE

Thank you for the TrustPilot reviews

Thank you to everyone who has taken a few minutes out of their day to share their experience. Every review helps us build credibility, reach more landlords and continue our mission of facilitating the sharing of best practice within the UK private rented sector.

If you haven’t yet had a chance to leave a review, or would simply like to read what other members have said, you can do so via the link below:

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.property118.com

The post What recent Trustpilot reviews reveal about the challenges landlords are facing appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: What recent Trustpilot reviews reveal about the challenges landlords are facing

Leaseholders clash with lobby group over leasehold reforms

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Leaseholders clash with lobby group over leasehold reforms

Leaseholders have slammed a “shadowy lobbyist group” for its last-ditch attempt to derail leasehold reform.

The National Leasehold Campaign (NLC) has hit out at a freeholder group for challenging the government’s reforms and threatening legal action.

The move comes as the government has announced a range of leasehold reforms, including a legal right for leaseholders to request fast broadband connections and a simplified process for converting leasehold flats to commonhold.

Direct opposition to government’s leasehold reforms

A story in The Times reveals that public relations (PR) firm Spreckley launched a group called Justice for Property Rights, made up of “small property investors, retirees, shared freeholders and long-term savers”, which was set up in “direct opposition to” the government’s leasehold reforms.

It was formed because “public debate has become overly focused on a small number of large estates and institutional investors”.

However, The Times reports that Spreckley declined to disclose who is paying for its work on the campaign.

It said Justice for Property Rights is “funded by private individuals and SMEs, not large landowners or institutional freeholders”. The firm added that the funders did not wish to disclose their identities.

Lawfare by vested interests

The NLC have criticised the “faceless group” for trying to derail the government’s reforms.

Katie Kendrick OBE, founder of the National Leasehold Campaign, said: “This isn’t grassroots campaigning, it’s lawfare by vested interests using anonymous fronts to protect profits and delay justice for millions of leaseholders.

“It is frankly astonishing, but entirely predictable, that yet another anonymous campaign group has emerged at the eleventh hour to threaten legal action against long-overdue leasehold reform.

“There is a clear and growing pattern. Time and again, loosely defined groups present themselves as ‘property rights or ‘freeholder’ campaigners yet refuse to disclose who is funding or driving them. They remain faceless instead of standing openly behind their positions and appear only when reform threatens their interests.

“When shadowy groups appear at the eleventh hour, it’s not democracy, it’s lawfare designed to stall reform and protect vested interests.”

She added: “The public must not be distracted by anonymous voices seeking to defend outdated privileges. Leaseholders have waited long enough.

“The government must stand firm, resist this lawfare, and accelerate the delivery of leasehold reform to finally bring this broken system to an end.”

Longstanding inequities of leasehold

The news comes as the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) committee has scrutinised the government’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, saying it needs to go further.

In response to the bill, the committee welcomed protections for leaseholders but warned that key recommendations previously made by the Law Commission are missing from the draft legislation.

Florence Eshalomi MP, chair of the HCLG Committee, said: “Millions of leaseholders have been waiting too long for successive governments to tackle the unfair leasehold system, cap ground rents, and put homeowners in control of the management of their buildings.

“It is vital the government now recognises this urgency by bringing forward revised legislation to deliver justice for leaseholders as soon as possible.

“I urge the government to introduce the final bill in autumn 2026 so this will be the Parliament which finally tackles the longstanding inequities of leasehold.”

The post Leaseholders clash with lobby group over leasehold reforms appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Leaseholders clash with lobby group over leasehold reforms