Many landlords set to miss key Renters’ Rights Act deadline

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Many landlords set to miss key Renters’ Rights Act deadline

A Freedom of Information request reveals that the government’s mandatory Renters’ Rights Act information sheet was downloaded 153,000 times in the first four weeks after publication.

That’s despite there being 2.3 million private landlords in England who are required to serve it on tenants by 31 May.

The data was obtained by Landlord Studio from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

Landlords who fail to provide the information sheet by the deadline could face penalties of up to £7,000 per tenancy.

Landlord RRA challenge

The firm’s co-founder, Logan Ransley, said: “The findings shine a light on a rollout challenge when it comes to the Renters’ Rights Act.

“Even allowing for reuse across portfolios, engagement with the official document looks low compared with the size of the private rented sector.

“We know the property sector isn’t uniform – some landlords already have systems in place for managing compliance and others don’t, relying on more manual or informal processes.”

He added: “When you introduce something like this on a fixed deadline, it doesn’t land in the same way for everyone.

“With the deadline approaching, landlords need to make sure they can not only provide the information required, but also evidence that they’ve done so.”

Uneven landlord compliance

The FOI response also showed 189,000 Gov.uk page sessions over the same four-week period, meaning not every visitor went on to download the official document.

Letting agents may account for part of the gap, with one download potentially used across several landlord clients or portfolios.

However, Landlord Studio said the figures suggest direct engagement with the official compliance material has been uneven ahead of the deadline.

The FOI response has been made publicly available through WhatDoTheyKnow.

The post Many landlords set to miss key Renters’ Rights Act deadline appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Many landlords set to miss key Renters’ Rights Act deadline

Two very popular questions on Landlord Facebook groups

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Two very popular questions on Landlord Facebook groups

Two very popular questions on Landlord Facebook groups at the moment are:

QUESTION 1:

Has anybody got a good CGT calculator?

QUESTION 2:

Where are landlords investing their surplus cash after selling their rental properties?

My stock answer to these questions is: HMRC has the best free online CGT calculators. Book a free 30-minute meeting with Property118, and we will share a link to the most appropriate HMRC CGT calculator for your purposes. We will also explain how landlords are getting a 10% annual return on cash investments, without exposure to stock market volatility.

It amazes me how many people respond to say that they’ve built a CGT calculator on ChatGPT or give a very basic (often flawed) explanation of how to calculate CGT.

What I also find shocking is the number of comments from people suggesting Gold, ETFs and other volatile investment classes. Even more shocking to me is those who still use this as an opportunity to promote cryptocurrencies.

My experience is that landlords want to understand returns, tax outcomes, risk, and to avoid volatility around value. Above all, they are looking for direction and clarity.

/* “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){form_content.find(‘form’).css(‘opacity’, 0);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 Two very popular questions on Landlord Facebook groups appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Two very popular questions on Landlord Facebook groups

Debt-free landlords are still choosing to exit the market

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Debt-free landlords are still choosing to exit the market

A widely held assumption is that landlords sell when they are under pressure, but that assumption no longer holds.

What is becoming clear is that many landlords now stepping back from the market are doing so from positions of strength, not weakness. These are not forced sellers reacting to rising costs or refinancing pressure. In many cases, they are landlords who have already paid down debt, built substantial equity and reached a point where the question is no longer “can this portfolio grow?”, but “does it still serve a purpose?”.

That distinction changes everything. When financial pressure is removed, decisions become more deliberate, because selling is no longer reactive, it becomes strategic. At that point, the motivation shifts. Control, simplicity and long-term certainty begin to outweigh further expansion. This is where the narrative begins to diverge from conventional thinking.

Data from the Property118 Landlord Sentiment Survey Q1 2026 supports this shift, showing that around 30% of landlords now have no mortgages, while more than 60% operate at loan-to-value ratios of 50% or below. Despite this, a majority still plan to reduce their portfolios. In other words, financial capacity is not translating into further investment; it is translating into choice.

This creates a very different type of market dynamic. If highly leveraged landlords sell, the story is about pressure. If debt-free landlords sell as well, the story becomes one of reassessment. It suggests that the sector is not simply losing those who can no longer sustain their position, but also those who no longer feel the need to maintain it.

That is a far more structural shift. It reflects a market where experienced landlords, many of whom have spent decades building their portfolios, are now stepping back on their own terms.

For now, one conclusion stands out: the landlords best placed to continue are increasingly the ones choosing not to.

For many landlords, the question is not whether the market is changing, but what that change means for their own position.

If you are holding a portfolio with relatively low borrowing, or are beginning to reassess how your assets are structured, this is often the point where a more joined-up view becomes useful.

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){form_content.find(‘form’).css(‘opacity’, 0);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 Debt-free landlords are still choosing to exit the market appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Debt-free landlords are still choosing to exit the market

NRLA assured periodic tenancy agreement – Is it missing a vital piece of information?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

NRLA assured periodic tenancy agreement – Is it missing a vital piece of information?

I have noted a potential issue in the NRLA’s new APT agreement that may be an omission of the “written statement requirements” under the Renters’ Rights Act.

The official Government guidance can be seen by clicking here.

There is a statement under “Disability Adaptations” on page 9 that makes the statement. “You must provide information that tells your tenant that they can find the definition of “disabled person” in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and the definition of “improvement” in section 190(9) of that Act.”

In the NRLA APT agreement, under Section A paragraph starting “Section 190 of the Equality Act”, there appears the statement, “Where Section 190 of the Equality Act 2010 applies, a landlord may not unreasonably withhold consent for a tenant’s application to make an improvement to premises where a disabled person occupies or intends to occupy the premises as their only or main home, and the improvement is likely to facilitate the disabled person’s enjoyment of the premises, having regard to their disability.”

However, this does not contain the definition of “disabled person” nor “improvement” under the Equality Act 2010, stated as required in the official government guidance line above.

Under Section B (definitions), the NRLA APT agreement states, “’disabled person” has the same meaning as set out in Section 6(2) of the Equality Act 2010.”

However, I can find no definition of “improvement” under the Equality Act 2010 in their APT agreement.

Should the APT agreement also define “improvement” under the Equality Act 2010 in Section A, Section B, or elsewhere in the agreement?

Is this an accidental omission?

Could this expose users of the current NRLA APT agreement “as is” to fines?

I have contacted the NRLA for clarification and I will post it here when received. In the meantime, if anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I would be very interested to read them.

Thanks,

Alex

The post NRLA assured periodic tenancy agreement – Is it missing a vital piece of information? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: NRLA assured periodic tenancy agreement – Is it missing a vital piece of information?

Citizens Advice helping hundreds of tenants as Renters’ Rights Act comes into force

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Citizens Advice helping hundreds of tenants as Renters’ Rights Act comes into force

A charity claims it is helping more than 200 renters a day with a combination of issues, including disrepair, Section 21 evictions and rent hikes, as the Renters’ Rights Act comes into effect.

According to Citizens Advice, in March 2026, it helped 2,335 people with Section 21 evictions, 1,829 with disrepair issues such as damp and mould, and just over 1,075 with rent increases.

Across the month, this equates to an average of 214 people a day supported with a combination of these issues.

Historic power imbalance in the PRS

Amy Hughes, advice manager at Citizens Advice, said: “The Renters’ Rights Act is a huge moment for private renters. It will address the historic power imbalance in the private rental sector and give tenants the security they deserve in their homes.

“Our advisers have seen the devastating impact ‘no fault’ evictions can have. Now landlords will only be able to evict tenants for specific reasons, like rent arrears, antisocial behaviour, or where they need to sell the property.

“For too long, tenants have faced the threat of eviction for simply speaking out against bad landlord behaviour or poor conditions. The new laws will see an end to these retaliatory practices and deliver a welcome boost to private renters’ rights.”

PRS plays a vital role

The news comes as the Renters’ Rights Act has now come into force, with charities previously warning of an eviction surge. 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.

However, as reported by The Independent, many landlords are weighing up their options, with rising costs and regulatory changes prompting some to reconsider their portfolios.

Megan Eighteen, president of Propertymark, told The Independent: “Higher mortgage rates, increased taxation and continued regulatory change have all contributed to some landlords reassessing whether their investment remains viable, particularly those with smaller portfolios or tighter margins.

“The private rented sector continues to play a vital role in meeting housing demand, and supporting responsible landlords to stay in the market is key to maintaining stability for both tenants and the wider housing system.”

The post Citizens Advice helping hundreds of tenants as Renters’ Rights Act comes into force appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Citizens Advice helping hundreds of tenants as Renters’ Rights Act comes into force

A sector moving from growth to transition – An inflection point

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

A sector moving from growth to transition – An inflection point

For many years, the private rented sector has been characterised by steady expansion. Landlords entered the market, built portfolios and reinvested over time, but that pattern now appears to be changing. This marks an inflection point; more landlords are stepping back than stepping forward.

The sector is not collapsing, but it is no longer expanding in the same way.

A shift in momentum

Momentum within a market is shaped by the direction of its participants. When more landlords are selling than buying, and fewer are entering than exiting, the underlying momentum changes. Growth slows, activity becomes more selective and the overall trajectory begins to shift. This is reflected across multiple findings in the latest Property118 survey dataset, including rising exit intentions, limited expansion and a growing tendency to hold rather than invest further.

Transition, not decline

It is important to distinguish between transition and decline. A sector can contract in terms of activity without losing its underlying relevance. The private rented sector continues to play a central role in housing provision, but the way landlords engage with it is evolving. Rather than continuous growth, the current phase is characterised by reassessment, consolidation and repositioning.

What transition looks like in practice

Transition does not happen uniformly. Some landlords are reducing portfolios, others are holding and reassessing, while a smaller group continue to expand selectively. At the same time, structural changes such as shifts towards company ownership and a focus on simplification are beginning to reshape how portfolios are managed. This creates a more complex, but also more deliberate, market environment.

A new phase for the sector

The data suggests that the private rented sector is moving into a new phase. One where decisions are driven less by opportunity to grow and more by clarity of purpose. Landlords are becoming more selective, more strategic and more focused on long-term outcomes.

For now, one conclusion stands out: the UK rental market is no longer in a phase of expansion, it is entering a period of transition shaped by the decisions of experienced landlords.

Five questions landlords often find themselves asking, usually just before something changes

These are the questions landlords tend to ask themselves just before they make a change, even if they haven’t quite admitted it yet.

1. Do I actually feel in control of my portfolio, or am I just keeping things running as they are?

This is often the first shift in thinking. On the surface, everything may be working, but that does not always translate into a genuine sense of control.

2. If I had to simplify everything tomorrow, what would I keep and what would I let go, and why haven’t I done that already?

This question tends to highlight where complexity has built up over time, and whether it is still serving a purpose.

3. Are my financing decisions really supporting where I want to end up, or just maintaining where I am today?

What worked at one stage does not always support the next. The distinction is subtle, but important.

4. If something unexpected happened, would I have options, or would I feel exposed and forced into decisions?

This is less about predicting events and more about understanding how resilient your current position really is.

5. Have I actually designed this portfolio, or have I just arrived here over time without stepping back to reconsider it?

For many landlords, the answer sits somewhere in between. That is often where the most valuable conversations begin.

About these questions

None of these questions are designed to lead you towards a particular outcome, and in many cases, the right answer may be to change very little.

What they tend to do, however, is begin to build a roadmap towards clarity.

For some landlords, that clarity confirms they are on the right path. For others, it highlights opportunities to simplify, strengthen, or realign what they have already built. Either way, it moves things from continuing by default to moving forward with intent.

If any of these questions resonate, it may be worth exploring them in more detail.

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){form_content.find(‘form’).css(‘opacity’, 0);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 A sector moving from growth to transition – An inflection point appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: A sector moving from growth to transition – An inflection point

BTL lenders widen specialist mortgage choice

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

BTL lenders widen specialist mortgage choice

Landlords refinancing specialist buy to let property are being offered fresh fixed-rate options as lenders adjust ranges for HMOs, multi-unit blocks, holiday lets and expat borrowers.

Foundation, the intermediary-only specialist lender, has expanded its BTL range with new Green, HMO, MUFB, holiday let and expat products, saying landlord cases are becoming more varied across both property type and borrower profile.

The lender has launched a Green standard HMO product at 5.59%, with a 4% fee, £500 cashback and no application fee for properties with an EPC rating of A to C.

New fixed BTL products

Two new five-year fixed-rate products have also been introduced for multi-unit freehold blocks and holiday lets.

Both carry a flat fee of £4,995, with the MUFB product priced at 6.24% and the Holiday Let option at 6.34%.

Foundation said the two products are aimed at landlords financing more complex property types, particularly where larger loan sizes are involved.

Its expat range has also been changed, with a new F2 two-year fixed-rate product priced at 6.34% and carrying a 1.5% fee.

HMO buy to let deals

Foundation’s director of sales, Grant Hendry, said: “In the current market, brokers need a lender that can offer both consistency and breadth of product, particularly as landlord cases become more varied and often more complex.

“These latest additions are about making sure brokers have the right options available, whether they are placing standard buy to let business or working across more specialist areas such as HMOs, MUFBs or holiday lets.”

Moneyfacts highlights TSB BTL

Meanwhile, Moneyfactscompare.co.uk has named a TSB five-year fixed rate buy to let mortgage as its BTL Pick of the Week, following selected rate cuts by the lender.

The TSB deal, described by Moneyfacts as a five-year fix at 75% loan-to-value, has been reduced by 0.15% and is now priced at 4.74% until 31 July 2031.

The product has a maximum loan-to-value of 60%.

The mortgage carries a £1,995 product fee, includes a free valuation, allows overpayments and is available in Great Britain to second-time buyers.

Landlord fixed rate mortgage

Commenting on the deal, Caitlyn Eastell, a personal finance analyst at platform, said: “The latest update from TSB sees it reduce selected fixed rate mortgages for landlords.

“One deal to see a 0.15% cut is the five-year deal at 75% loan-to-value, it is now priced at 4.74% until 31 July 2031.

“Despite its large £1,995 fee, the deal sits at the top of its sector, and its free valuation incentive may offset some of the cost which may add to its appeal.”

For assistance with any type of buy to let (BTL), property or commercial finance please complete the contact form below:

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

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_483′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_483′).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_483′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_483′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_483′).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_483′).val();gformInitSpinner( 483, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [483, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_483′] = 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_483′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [483]);window[‘gf_submitting_483′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_483′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_483′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “483”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_483″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_483″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_483″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 483, 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 BTL lenders widen specialist mortgage choice appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: BTL lenders widen specialist mortgage choice

Hybrid LLPs and my thoughts on HMRC’s Spotlight 63A

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Hybrid LLPs and my thoughts on HMRC’s Spotlight 63A

This is my own opinion piece, reflecting my reading of the law and my own thoughts on how HMRC and the tax tribunals should approach the Hybrid LLP transactions described in HMRC Spotlight 63A. It is not advice, and other commentators will disagree with me, but that is the nature of tax.

What follows is intended to do three things for landlords:

• Explain, in plain English, what the issue actually is
• Cut through the conflation of rules and commentary that has developed
• Set out a legally grounded view of where the tax analysis should land

I also make this important distinction at the outset. Property118 raised concerns about Hybrid LLP arrangements as far back as 2017 and has never recommended them. This situation is entirely separate from the case we are advancing before the Tax Tribunal on HMRC’s interpretation of s162 incorporation relief and refinancing. Conflating the two does not help anyone.

What is the Hybrid LLP issue in simple terms?

Many landlords have become victims of structures involving the formation of an LLP in which one or more of the members is a Limited Company, with arrangements under which the company member receives a share of rental profits that it isn’t entitled to receive.

The main promoter and implementer of the scheme suggests that the company contributed “capital” by indemnifying mortgage debt, and that is where the technical narrative begins. It is also where, in my opinion, it goes wrong, because if you strip the structure back to its economic reality, the key factor is that what actually changed (incorrectly, in my opinion, for reasons I will come to) was the allocation of income.  On that basis, the allocation of income should be the starting point for any proper legal analysis.

Sadly, the scheme was heavily promoted by the NRLA, which added credibility to the arrangements, and which has left several of it’s members now caught up in a nightmare scenario and feeling duped. The NRLA denies being a ‘Promoter’ or endorsing the scheme, but the evidence I’ve reviewed contradicts that position entirely.

What exactly is the true purpose of an indemnity?

The creation of an indemnity is not a shift of capital at all. The purpose of an indemnity over liabilities is referred to in HMRC’s manual CG65745 and also in Extra Statutory Concession D32, but for a completely different purpose altogether. Liabilities are external debts an organization owes to third parties (creditors, banks, mortgage lenders) that must be repaid, such as loans or accounts payable. Capital is the internal, residual value invested by owners, or gains made on those investments, representing the owners stake in assets after liabilities are paid. It is seemingly a misunderstanding of this terminology that is a large part of why landlords who participated in Hybrid LLP scheme are in so much difficulty.

Why the “indemnity equals capital” argument does not hold

My thoughts are broadly aligned with HMRC on this point.

The Hybrid LLP structure relied on the idea that a company introduces capital by indemnifying borrowing. I do not accept that, nor does HMRC.

An indemnity is a contingent obligation, not cash, not an asset transferred, and not something that increases the net asset position of the LLP. Nor does it reduce liabilities or create new assets within the business. In ordinary commercial terms, and in accounting terms, it is not capital. The importance of this point is that the allocation of profit to the company was justified by reference to that supposed capital contribution. If that foundation falls away, the structure becomes impossible to defend.

What actually happened?

Once you remove the language and labels, the position becomes clearer.

• The rental income continues to arise from properties owned and controlled by individual members of the LLP
• The economic exposure to those properties remains proportional to those individuals
• A portion of that income is allocated to a company

In other words, income has been diverted without a corresponding transfer of the value that generates it. That is not a niche or obscure issue in tax law. It is something Parliament has already legislated for.

The evidence I’ve studied, which includes the full accounts of several landlords who were duped into the Hybrid LLP scheme, is that equity in their properties was consistently reflected in their personal capital account balances. I’ve seen no evidence in later accounts to suggest that position ever changed, which leads me to conclude that there was never any form of capital shifting beyond the transfer of beneficial ownership from individuals to their own capital accounts, which should be treated as tax-transparent in any event. If capital shifting had occurred, other forms of tax might have applied, but I have seen no evidence of that having happened.

The correct legal lens, in my view

The most natural fit, based on the facts above, is Transfer of Income Streams legislation 2009 schedule 25.

In simple terms, that legislation exists to deal with situations where income is separated from economic beneficial ownership of the asset or activity that produces it and the person who retains the underlying value seeks to shift the tax elsewhere. The reality is more straightforward: tax follows the underlying economic reality, not the contractual allocation of income.

If the economic beneficial ownership of the whole business had been moved to the company member of the LLP, then taxation would follow it, but that is not what Hybrid LLP’s did. Furthermore, in that scenario, there would have been no purpose for the LLP to exist at all.

Applied here, the above leads to a “look through” approach being the most logical outcome, where the individuals who retain the economic interest should be the ones taxed on the income. The diversion of income to a company should be ignored for tax purposes. This is not a novel interpretation, it is precisely what the legislation was designed to achieve.

What does correction look like in practice?

If HMRC, or ultimately a Tribunal, adopt my opinion, the outcome should be relatively clear.

• Rental income is taxed on the individual members
• Section 24 finance cost restrictions apply at the individual level
• The corporate member’s allocation is disregarded for income tax purposes

This is a correction, not a recharacterisation into something entirely different. It brings the tax position back into line with the underlying facts.

Why I do not agree with some of the wider commentary

A number of commentators have expanded the analysis into areas that, in my view, do not naturally arise from the facts. For the landlords affected, that is where confusion and massive legal fees being paid for advisers to argue their opinions, have all crept in. Forgive me for this skeptical rhetorical question but; was this fearmongering designed to charge landlord victims of the Hybrid LLP scheme big fees to fund the professional curiosity of ‘ambulance chaser’ firms?

Stamp Duty and CGT can arise on profit share allocation where capital shifting has occurred. However, in my opinion, that’s not the case here, and if it was, then I don’t think HMRC can have it both ways, i.e. to disallow the transfer of income on the grounds that it should never have happened, AND, on the other hand, to charge both CGT and SDLT as if it did happen. In my opinion, the only clear CGT exposure is where properties have been sold and capital gains have not been declared. I could be wrong, and that’s why I expect other commentators to disagree with me, but I suspect that’s where the Tax Tribunal decisions will land. Please remember, these are just my opinions, they are not advice!

Why multiple legal routes may still lead to the same place

It is important to recognise that HMRC are unlikely to rely on a single provision to litigate their case.

They may also look to mixed member partnership rules and general anti-avoidance principles. Those routes differ in their technical construction, but they often converge on the same practical outcome, i.e. that income is taxed on the individuals who truly earn it. That convergence strengthens, rather than weakens, my analysis set out above.

Why this is fundamentally different from Section 162 incorporation

Under Section 162 incorporation relief, the legal and economic position is very different.

• The whole business is transferred to a company
• The beneficial ownership of the assets moves
• The company becomes the entity that earns the income going forward

That is a genuine commercial transaction because beneficial ownership moves fully to the company. Tax follows that movement.

Where Property118 stands

I want to be absolutely clear on three points.

First, Property118 has never recommended these hybrid LLP structures. We raised concerns about them as far back as 2017, precisely because of the issues now being debated.

Second, my position here is grounded in what I believe the law requires. I am not defending the Hybrid LLP structure. I am explaining how it should be analysed and how I beleive the tax position should be corrected.

Third, this is a completely separate issue from the case Property118 are currently advancing before the Tax Tribunal in relation to HMRC’s current interpetations of s162 incorporation relief, ESC D32 and BIM45700. Those issues relate to incorporation and refinancing, where real business transfers and genuine economic changes occured, whereas the hybrid LLP arrangements described in Spotlight 63A are completely different. Conflating the two risks misunderstanding both.

Why this matters so much for landlord victims of the Hybrid LLP scheme

For landlords caught up in Hybrid LLP arrangements, the key concern is uncertainty. What are the risks? What should be corrected? How serious is the position? How much tax do they actually owe?

My view is that clarity should come from focusing on first principles.

• No meaningful capital was introduced to the corporate member of the LLP
• No real value was transferred to the company
• Income was reallocated away from those who owned the assets that generated it

Seen in that light, the issue becomes one of income tax, not a cascade of unrelated taxes.

Any landlords who have not already exited the scheme and made arrangements with HMRC to pay the extra income tax due are putting themselves in jeopardy in my opinion. Unfortunately, there seem to be many such landlords who are coninuing to bury their heads in the sand, and I don’t think it will be too long now before they find themseves in a position when they are dealing with the ruthlessness of HMRC’s collections department. They probably can’t refinance, so selling properties now seems to be their only option, unless they have sufficient cash funds to pay their tax debts from other sources.

A grounded conclusion

Tax law can become complex very quickly. Structures, commentary and competing interpretations can obscure what is actually happening, but when we return to fundamentals, the picture becomes clearer. If income has been diverted without transferring the underlying value, the tax system already has the tools to deal with that. The Transfer of Income Streams legislation is the most direct expression of that principle, supported by other rules that reach similar outcomes.

That is why I take the views expressed above, not because it is convenient, but because it aligns with how the law is intended to operate.

Final thought

There will be further debate on this. There will be differing opinions, and likely continued commentary that stretches the analysis in different directions, but my position is deliberately grounded.

Focus on what moved. Focus on who retains the economic interest. Apply the law accordingly.

In many cases, that leads to a straightforward conclusion: the income should have been taxed on the individuals in the first place.

The post Hybrid LLPs and my thoughts on HMRC’s Spotlight 63A appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Hybrid LLPs and my thoughts on HMRC’s Spotlight 63A

Landlords sitting on significant equity, but much of it remains unused

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlords sitting on significant equity, but much of it remains unused

A quieter theme emerging from the latest landlord data is not about borrowing, but about what is not being done with existing equity. According to the Property118 Landlord Sentiment Survey Q1 2026, a large proportion of landlords now operate with low loan-to-value ratios or no borrowing at all, indicating substantial levels of equity sitting within portfolios.

Based on 2,380 completed responses, the majority of landlords report loan-to-value ratios below 50%, with many holding properties outright. You can explore the full dataset here.

The implication is clear: significant capital exists within the sector, but much of it is not actively deployed.

Equity without direction

For many landlords, equity has built up gradually over time through capital growth and mortgage repayment. This has created a position of financial strength, but not always a clear plan for what that capital is intended to achieve. In some cases, it simply remains within the properties themselves, without being actively utilised.

This is not necessarily a problem, but it does raise an important question:

If the equity is not being used to support growth, income or wider financial planning, what role is it serving?

From growth to preservation

The shift towards lower leverage suggests a broader change in mindset. Earlier stages of portfolio building often involve higher borrowing levels to accelerate growth. Over time, as portfolios mature, the focus tends to move towards consolidation and risk reduction.

The survey findings reflect this transition.

Many landlords are no longer looking to expand aggressively. Instead, they are holding substantial equity while reassessing their long-term objectives.

Opportunity or inefficiency?

Unused equity can be viewed in two ways. On one hand, it provides security. Lower borrowing reduces financial risk and creates resilience against market fluctuations. On the other, it may represent an opportunity cost.

Capital tied up in property is not easily accessible, and if it is not being actively deployed, it may not be contributing fully to income generation or broader financial planning.

This is where the distinction between holding assets and actively managing them becomes more relevant.

A factor in changing behaviour

The presence of significant equity also influences how landlords respond to current market conditions. As highlighted elsewhere in the Property118 dataset, many landlords are planning to reduce their portfolios or exit entirely. When equity levels are high, these decisions become easier to implement. Selling a property with low or no debt is a straightforward way to release capital, particularly if there is no immediate need to refinance or restructure, but is that the best option to choose?

A turning point in how portfolios are used

The data suggests that many landlords are approaching a turning point. Having built substantial equity over time, the focus is shifting from accumulation to utilisation. The question is no longer how to build the portfolio, but what to do with what has already been created.

For now, one conclusion stands out: a significant proportion of landlord wealth is tied up in property, but without a clear strategy, that equity risks remaining passive rather than productive.

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){form_content.find(‘form’).css(‘opacity’, 0);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 Landlords sitting on significant equity, but much of it remains unused appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlords sitting on significant equity, but much of it remains unused

Housing minister rejects calls for immediate leasehold abolition

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Housing minister rejects calls for immediate leasehold abolition

The housing minister claims the government will not “immediately abolish leasehold overnight”.

In a speech at the Institute for Government think tank, Matthew Pennycook criticised those calling for outright abolition, questioning how the mortgage market would be affected.

The National Leasehold Campaign has called for reform, saying “justice delayed is justice denied, and that is exactly how leaseholders now experience this system”.

Not promising to abolish leasehold outright

Mr Pennycook said in his speech: “In making that manifesto commitment to bring the leasehold system to an end, we were not promising to immediately abolish leasehold outright.

“If outright abolition had been our intention, we would have stood on a manifesto that promised as much.

“We did not do so, and for good reason, because anyone, with even the most rudimentary knowledge of leasehold, knows that the outright and immediate abolition of circa five million English and Welsh leases is almost certainly impossible.

“Those advocating for such an approach cannot answer how it would be lawful; how the impact on the mortgage market would be managed; how it would even be feasible for the land registry to delete millions of leasehold and freehold titles and replace them with commonhold ones overnight; how millions of commonhold associations could instantly be established with hundreds of thousands of directors corralled into overseeing them; or what the consequences would be for buildings that have already enfranchised or exercised the Right to Manage.

“They can’t answer these questions because abolishing leasehold outright is a glib soundbite rather than a serious policy proposition.”

Make commonhold the default tenure

Mr Pennycook added instead the government wants to end the feudal leasehold system by making commonhold the default tenure.

He said: “To stop the renewal of the leasehold system, we are legislating to make commonhold the default tenure.

“Commonhold is a modern homeownership structure that is used widely around the world.

“It is not merely an alternative to leasehold ownership, but a radical improvement on it.

“At the heart of the commonhold model is a simple principle: the people who should own buildings, and who should exercise control over their management, shared facilities and related costs are not third-party landlords but the people who live in flats within them and who have a direct stake in their upkeep. Commonhold ensures that the interests of homeowners are preserved in perpetuity.”

Industry reaction to Mr Pennycook’s speech

The National Leasehold campaign said they understood leasehold could not be abolished overnight, but the government must do more to protect leaseholders.

The campaign said: “We are realistic. We know that leasehold cannot be abolished overnight. But leaseholders have run out of patience, and they are entitled to. After years of promises, consultations and repeated commitments, words alone are now meaningless without visible, concrete progress. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that is exactly how leaseholders now experience this system.

The campaign adds: “What the Minister has confirmed is that he will not be deterred by complexity. He has been honest about the challenges, realistic about what can be achieved, and clear about the direction of travel towards finally ending the feudal leasehold system. That clarity matters.

“However, for existing leaseholders facing escalating costs, insecurity and daily stress, intent must rapidly turn into outcomes.

“Millions have waited far too long for meaningful change. Many are losing faith that reform will ever arrive. The Minister has confirmed a determination to provide existing leaseholders with genuine escape routes, and those commitments must now be delivered in legislation, not postponed yet again. Every further delay compounds the injustice.”

Support government ambition

Chief executive officer at The Property Institute (TPI), Andrew Bulmer, welcomed the government’s commitment to mandatory qualification.

He said: “TPI supports the government’s clear ambition to reinvigorate commonhold and reform leasehold, empowering residents to take control of their own affairs and bills.

“If there are more residents running their own buildings, however, there is a greater need for competent, qualified professional property managers to support them. Whilst many managing agents do a good job, the lack of any regulatory oversight or enforcement means that bad actors and bad behaviours exist, and we must raise the bar of professional standards.

“The government’s commitment to mandatory qualifications is very welcome, and vital to raise standards. We encourage the minister to go further and introduce regulation of property managers, to improve trust and confidence in flat ownership, which is vital for boosting housing delivery.”

Service chargers can have a negative impact

Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Pennycook said service charges can have a negative impact on leaseholders.

When asked by Inside Housing Magazine whether a regulator should oversee the planned reforms, he said he understood why some leaseholders favour stronger measures such as caps, but argued they could do more harm than good.

He told Inside Housing: “We don’t think things like caps will work. I’ll give you an example of why. If you’re in a building that’s enfranchised, you’ve taken control. You might need to do your roof at some point and you might need to raise money beyond a cap to do the roof. That’s a choice.

“The point is, service charges have to be reasonable and we’ve got to allow people the means to challenge when they’re not.

“At the moment, the fact that you can get hit for litigation costs, the fact that you can’t often see what your service charge means, there’s no standardised form. It’s not transparent.

“People just don’t feel confident enough to go to the tribunal. So that’s the thrust of the reforms. But we’re not looking at caps or anything cruder. I think they’ll end up having a detrimental impact on leaseholders, particularly for those who’ve taken control.”

The post Housing minister rejects calls for immediate leasehold abolition appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Housing minister rejects calls for immediate leasehold abolition