Landlords warned about insulation letters as government scraps ECO scheme

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Landlords warned about insulation letters as government scraps ECO scheme

Landlords are being urged to look out for letters about faulty insulation and upcoming repair plans.

As previously reported by Property118, the National Audit Office (NAO) found that 98% of homes fitted with external wall insulation under the government’s ECO4 scheme need remedial work to fix serious issues that could cause damp and mould.

Despite this, the government has not yet confirmed a timeline for repairing affected properties, even though Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the Autumn Budget that the ECO scheme will end in March next year.

Only 2,900 homes fully repaired

Earlier this year, the government suspended 39 businesses from installing solid wall insulation after routine checks revealed major failings, pledging that installers would be required to fix the defects free of charge.

However, by mid-September 2025, only 2,900 homes had been fully repaired.

The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) says landlords whose properties had insulation installed under the ECO4 or Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) should expect a letter from Ofgem if the work is below standard.

As the letter will be sent directly to the property, the NRLA is urging landlords to tell tenants to look out for the letter and inform them immediately once it is received.

The government is also calling on anyone who receives an audit invitation to allow qualified professionals access, allowing problems to be identified and fixed.

The government adds that even if the original installer is no longer operating, ECO4 or GBIS should be covered by guarantees.

Government will scrap ECO scheme in March 2026

The news comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the Budget that the government would scrap the ECO scheme to save money on energy bills and replace it with the Warm Homes Plan.

However, as previously reported by Property118, despite the Warm Homes Plan being scheduled to launch last month, a government minister has admitted the scheme will now roll out “before the end of the year.”

The Warm Homes Plan aims to help homeowners cut energy costs and improve home energy efficiency, offering grants for heat pumps and support for renters and low-income households.

However, industry experts have criticised the government for scrapping the ECO scheme.

Anna Moore, CEO and founder at retrofit consultancy Domna, said: “The Warm Homes Plan is a welcome initiative. However, suddenly yanking £1.3 billion in funding is chaotic and has created a cliff edge for thousands of low-income households in fuel poverty, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) employing some 10,000 people.

“With fuel poverty growing and business under pressure, it beggars belief that a successful scheme funnelling utility firm funding to the poorest households in society should be brutally cut. And for what? To create a few short-term headlines around cutting Net Zero levies.”

She adds: “This fundamentally goes against Labour’s stated values of wanting to help the poor and to fight climate change. This is not the moment to pull up the ladder. Bridging ECO to the Warm Homes Plan is essential if we are to protect residents, protect jobs and protect progress.

“Right now, we risk losing the installers, coordinators and surveyors – those SMEs who have built up capability over a decade, and whose expertise we critically need. Companies cannot simply be switched back on later like a light switch and the ramifications of this could massively undermine our wider battles to fight climate change and upgrade our ageing housing stock.

“We need clarity and continuity. Extending ECO by one year allows an orderly transition while the Warm Homes Plan is finalised, piloted and mobilised. Without that extension, the sector falls off a cliff in March 2026 and we will be rebuilding capacity from scratch at exactly the moment the government needs to accelerate delivery.”

The post Landlords warned about insulation letters as government scraps ECO scheme appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlords warned about insulation letters as government scraps ECO scheme

New Builds vs Older Properties – Landlord Insurance Considerations

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

New Builds vs Older Properties – Landlord Insurance Considerations

Not all rental properties are created equal in the eyes of insurers. New builds and older properties carry very different risks, and those differences directly affect the type of cover you need and the price you pay. Understanding these contrasts helps landlords avoid underinsurance, declined claims, and unexpected premium hikes.

Why Property Age Matters to Insurers

Insurers consider age a key rating factor because it influences structural integrity, compliance standards, and claim likelihood. While new builds may benefit from warranties, older properties often face higher risks of escape of water, electrical faults, and subsidence.

Insurance Advantages of New Builds

• Modern construction – built to current regulations, with higher energy efficiency and fire safety standards.
• Structural warranties – NHBC or equivalent schemes can reduce perceived risk for the first 10 years.
• Lower claims frequency – fewer issues with plumbing, wiring, or roofing during the first decade.
• Competitive premiums – insurers may rate new builds more favourably than older stock.

However, landlords should note that warranties do not replace insurance. They cover only specific defects, not fire, flood, malicious damage, or liability.

Insurance Risks of Older Properties

• Ageing services – older wiring, boilers, and pipework are more prone to faults.
• Escape of water – leaking roofs, outdated plumbing, and flat roofs increase claims frequency.
• Subsidence – more common in properties built on clay soils or with shallow foundations.
• Listed buildings – specialist reinstatement requirements can dramatically increase rebuild costs and claim timelines.
• Non-standard construction – timber frames, thatch, or concrete prefabs may require specialist underwriting.

Loss of Rent – Why Time Matters

Reinstating an older property after a serious fire or flood often takes longer than a new build. Planning permissions, heritage requirements, and the availability of specialist trades all extend the timeline. Landlords of older stock should check that their loss of rent cover allows for extended reinstatement periods, not just the standard 12 months.

Common Pitfalls

• Assuming warranties replace insurance – they don’t; they only cover defects.
• Underinsuring rebuild costs – listed buildings and older stock often require expensive reinstatement methods.
• Ignoring specialist underwriting needs – non-standard materials like thatch or timber frames may not be accepted by mainstream insurers.
• Failing to disclose age-related issues – non-disclosure of prior subsidence or electrical faults can void cover.

Checklist Before You Buy or Renew

• Confirm whether your property is new build, standard construction, or non-standard.
• Disclose any structural warranties to your broker or insurer.
• Check rebuild costs carefully, especially for older or listed properties.
• Review loss of rent limits in line with realistic reinstatement times.
• Keep maintenance logs – especially for older wiring, boilers, and roofs.

Final Thoughts

New builds and older properties both make good investments, but they carry different insurance considerations. For landlords, the key is to match cover to the property’s age, structure, and risks. By doing so, you protect not only your assets but also your income stream in the event of a serious claim.

Request your quote or call-back

The most efficient way to get a personal quote with the best price and cover possible is to call the team on 01832 770965 so we can focus on your enquiry when you are ready and sitting down with your portfolio details to hand.

Alternatively, you can use the form below to request one of our team to give you a call back.

/* “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_9′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_9′).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_9′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).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_9′).val();gformInitSpinner( 9, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [9, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_9′] = 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_9′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [9]);window[‘gf_submitting_9′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_9′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_9′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “9”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_9″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_9″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_9″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 9, 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(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

Publication date: Tuesday 2 December 2025

The post New Builds vs Older Properties – Landlord Insurance Considerations appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: New Builds vs Older Properties – Landlord Insurance Considerations

London’s rental supply stays strong as demand drops in Christmas run-up

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

London’s rental supply stays strong as demand drops in Christmas run-up

New PRS listings continued to climb in October as the capital’s rental market showed no sign of weakening, even as demand began to ease ahead of Christmas.

Foxtons’ data reveals that supply stayed strong throughout the month, extending a trend seen since the start of the year.

Listings slipped 7% compared with September, yet still outperformed October 2024.

Over the year, new instructions are running 10% higher than last year, giving tenants more choice than they saw in previous autumn cycles.

Demand, however, cooled sharply with renter registrations dropping 33% between September and October as the traditional seasonal slowdown took hold.

London’s PRS is resilient

The firm’s managing director of lettings, Gareth Atkins, said: “October saw a seasonal slowdown in demand, but the London lettings market remains resilient.

“The recent Royal Assent of the Renters’ Rights Act is a significant milestone, and with Phase 1 implementation confirmed for 1 May 2025, landlords should prepare for upcoming changes by working with a London lettings expert to get the right price for their rental property.”

He added: “Despite easing competition, rental values have held firm, supported by strong applicant budgets and improved supply.

“These trends underline the continued strength of London’s rental sector and its ability to deliver returns for landlords, even in a shifting regulatory landscape.”

Rental demand is firm

Foxtons says activity has been tracking 7% below 2024 levels across the year, although the need for rental homes in London remains firm.

Declines were most noticeable in the South and West of the capital, where enquiries tapered off faster than in other areas.

Average weekly rents dipped 3% to £575, echoing the softening usually seen in October.

Even so, year-to-date figures show rents are still 2% higher than in 2024.

Every borough of London recorded growth over the year apart from the North, pointing to steady pricing supported by continued demand.

Lower tenant competition

Tenant competition has also eased with the number of new renters per instruction falling nearly 29% month-on-month.

In August, roughly 20 tenants chased each available home; by October that had halved to nine.

Foxtons says this gives renters a better chance of securing a property without the bidding pressure that dominated earlier in the year.

Budgets also remained tight but consistent as tenants spent an average of 99% of their registered limits.

Around 63% of renters found homes below budget, while 30% had to push beyond what they originally set aside.

The post London’s rental supply stays strong as demand drops in Christmas run-up appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: London’s rental supply stays strong as demand drops in Christmas run-up

Could Section 24 be extended to Limited Companies? The fear landlords cannot shake

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Could Section 24 be extended to Limited Companies? The fear landlords cannot shake

Section 24 left a scar on the private rented sector that has never fully healed. It arrived fast. It arrived without consultation. It arrived in a way that many landlords still describe as a betrayal. The shock changed the psychology of investment for a generation.

The result is predictable. Every time a tax announcement surfaces, landlords ask the same question.

Will they come for limited companies next?

This fear is understandable. It is also one of the most persistent sources of anxiety in the landlord community. The potential consequences would be enormous. The question deserves a full and unfiltered examination rather than quick reassurance or empty speculation.

This article takes a forensic look at the issue. It addresses the political logic, the legislative barriers, the structural differences between individuals and companies, the role of Housing Associations, the involvement of pension funds, the importance of REITs and the reason Treasury would face a political and economic backlash far beyond anything seen in 2015.

The aim is not to dismiss landlord concerns. The aim is to evaluate the genuine risk with clarity rather than emotion.

The trauma of Section 24

Section 24 was a political intervention. It was not a rational tax reform. It was introduced during a period when the Government wanted to tilt the housing market towards first time buyers and away from private landlords. The measure was framed as a correction to an imbalance. It targeted one very specific group of taxpayers. It changed the economics of borrowing almost overnight.

It was politically cheap to introduce. It was technically easy to legislate. It required small amendments to income tax law. It did not require consultation with institutions, pension funds or regulated housing bodies. The public narrative at the time portrayed private landlords as part of the affordability problem. The measure was politically popular in mainstream discussion.

It is no surprise that landlords remain afraid the same might happen again.

Fear based on memory is powerful. Fear based on policy evidence needs closer examination.

Section 24 was aimed at individuals, not companies

Section 24 sits entirely within personal income tax. The targeting was deliberate. Individuals are taxed under ITTOIA 2005. Companies are taxed under the Corporation Tax Act 2009. These are separate systems with separate rules. Section 24 alters the way individual profits are calculated. It has no interaction with the corporate tax framework.

Companies were not given a privilege. They were simply governed by a different set of rules.

The elephant in the room

Many landlords argue that Section 24 itself created a structural inconsistency. They argue that if Government was willing to break long established norms once, it could break them again. They argue that fairness has never been the guiding principle. They argue that nothing is safe.

This argument must be taken seriously. Dismissing it would undermine the purpose of this article. The fear is logical on a psychological level. It is not supported on a structural level.

The correct way to address this is to examine the difference between political interventions and structural tax reform.

A political intervention can target individuals

A structural reform cannot target only individuals.

Section 24 targeted individuals because this was politically straightforward and technically simple. Income tax rules can be tightened or adjusted with very little risk to the wider economy.

Corporate tax structures cannot be changed in the same way. The corporation tax system supports:

• Housing Associations
• REITs
• pension funds
• institutional investors
• commercial landlords
• Build to Rent operators
• infrastructure providers
• major financial institutions

Targeting companies is an entirely different category of policy action.

Why Housing Associations block a corporate version of Section 24

Housing Associations rely heavily on finance cost deductibility. Their funding models, their viability assessments and their covenant compliance all incorporate interest deductibility as a core assumption.

If Government restricted finance cost deductions for companies, Housing Associations would face:

• higher reported taxable profits
• reduced surpluses
• worsened covenant positions
• higher financing costs
• increased rent pressure
• reduced development capacity
• impaired credit ratings

No Government seeking to increase housing supply can afford to destabilise Housing Associations. They deliver a large proportion of affordable housing. They partner with Government. They depend on the stability of corporate tax treatment.

Section 24 for companies would hit them directly.

Why REITs make the risk even smaller

Real Estate Investment Trusts are part of pension fund investment portfolios. They rely on predictable corporate tax treatment. Restricting their finance deductions would:

• damage pension fund performance
• destabilise listed property markets
• reduce investment in UK housing
• damage capital flows
• undermine Build to Rent pipelines
• weaken UK competitiveness

Treasury is acutely aware of the consequences of destabilising institutional investment.

A policy that hits both Housing Associations and REITs is not politically survivable.

Could Government exempt Housing Associations and REITs?

The simple answer is that this is theoretically possible but practically unworkable.

To target only “small landlord companies,” Government would need to:

• split the corporation tax system
• define a new class of “residential landlord companies”
• create exemptions for Housing Associations
• create exemptions for REITs
• create exemptions for commercial property
• draft anti-avoidance rules
• block group structuring loopholes
• manage legal challenges
• defend two parallel tax systems
• justify why certain corporate landlords keep deductibility while others lose it

Section 24 required a few tweaks to income tax law.
A corporate version would require the largest rewrite of property taxation in decades.

The complexity is enormous. The political risks are high. The economic risks are higher.

The behavioural reason the fear persists

Section 24 traumatised landlords. It arrived fast. It arrived without warning. It arrived with a narrative that framed landlords as part of the problem.

Many landlords now believe that any negative outcome is possible because one negative outcome already happened. The fear is understandable. It is not evidence-based.

To assess risk accurately, published policy signals must be examined rather than emotions.

What policy signals actually show

Property118 reviews:

• each annual Budget
• the Overview of Tax Legislation and Rates
• HMRC technical notes
• consultations
• policy costings
• impact assessments

Across all these documents, there has never been:

• a proposal to restrict finance deductibility for companies
• a consultation exploring the idea
• a technical note modelling the impact
• a Treasury briefing hinting at alignment with Section 24
• a single reference to a corporate version of the measure

The risk is not supported by evidence. It is supported only by memory.

Why the political context today is completely different from 2015

The UK now depends on:

• Build to Rent for housing delivery
• REITs for institutional investment
• Housing Associations for affordable homes
• pension funds for development capital
• inward investment to stabilise the market

Destabilising landlord companies would destabilise the entire housing system.

Individuals were politically easy to target in 2015. Companies are not.

What landlords should actually be preparing for

The real pressure points for strategy are:

• the 2027 income tax rise
• Section 24’s continuing impact
• refinancing and interest rate risk
• EPC reforms returning
• higher maintenance standards
• licensing expansion
• deleveraging strategy
• incorporation planning
• inheritance planning and Family Investment Companies

These factors will shape outcomes far more than speculative fears about an unsupported policy direction.

The final position

Section 24 for individuals was politically easy.

Section 24 for companies would be structurally impossible without rewriting the corporation tax system.

• No Government has proposed it.
  No consultation has explored it.
  No technical note has hinted at it.
  No housing strategy could survive it.
  No institutional investor would tolerate it.

Section 24 for companies is not a live policy idea.
It is a fear created by memory, not supported by evidence.

Landlords should focus on the real strategic decisions that will shape their future, rather than the shadows cast by the past.

Our consultancy not only covers retirement, business continuity and legacy planning. It can also unlock the lifestyle you once dreamed about but forgot to implement.

Important notice – scope of planning support

Where our recommendations touch on areas requiring regulated input, we refer clients to appropriately authorised professionals for advice and execution.

The post Could Section 24 be extended to Limited Companies? The fear landlords cannot shake appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Could Section 24 be extended to Limited Companies? The fear landlords cannot shake

London council takes control of landlord’s 18 homes

admin    Uncategorized     agents

A London council has taken over the long-term management of 18 rented properties in response to the landlord’s repeated failure to comply with safety and licensing regulations.

The council says this is one of the first actions of its kind in the country.

View Full Article: London council takes control of landlord’s 18 homes

Fees After Tenants Break a Contract: Fair or Not?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Most tenancies end without major dispute, but when a tenant breaks their contract early the question is always the same: who pays for the fallout? A recent tribunal case shows how landlords can recover reasonable costs – and where the line is drawn.

View Full Article: Fees After Tenants Break a Contract: Fair or Not?

Energy efficiency gains help transform England’s PRS

admin    Uncategorized     agents

England’s housing stock has expanded by 9% over the past decade, reaching 25.4 million dwellings by 2023, outpacing the 7% population growth, the English Housing Survey reveals.

An analysis of the report’s data by Nationwide’s senior economist, Andrew Harvey

View Full Article: Energy efficiency gains help transform England’s PRS

Angela Rayner faces hypocrisy claims over £800,000 seaside flat purchase

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy prime minister and housing secretary, has sparked controversy after purchasing a three-bedroom seaside flat in Hove for £800,000.

Newspapers report that the acquisition, made earlier this year, adds to her property portfolio

View Full Article: Angela Rayner faces hypocrisy claims over £800,000 seaside flat purchase

When a Scam Tenant Took Over Without Paying a Penny

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Every landlord knows the risks of late rent, but sometimes the issue is far more brazen. Imagine finding out that the person living in your property was never a legitimate tenant at all, but a scammer who had quietly taken over and paid nothing.

View Full Article: When a Scam Tenant Took Over Without Paying a Penny

Court delays leave landlords waiting eight months to reclaim properties

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Landlords face the longest wait for possession in over two years, according to figures published by the Ministry of Justice.

The average wait for a landlord in the second quarter of this year was 33.8 weeks – almost eight months

View Full Article: Court delays leave landlords waiting eight months to reclaim properties