Rightmove: 'First drop' in house rent prices outside London since before the COVID pandemic
The average asking price to rent a home outside London has fallen for the first time since before the COVID pandemic, according to a property website.
Rightmove credited improved levels of rental properties for the welcome shift, but declared that advertised private rents in the capital continued to tick up, for a 13th consecutive quarter, between October to December.
It reported an average sum of £2,695 per calendar month (pcm) for London, though that was only 0.1% higher than the previous quarter.
The rest of Britain had an average newly advertised rent of £1,341 pcm - down 0.2%.
The trend for the country as a whole is of a price slowdown following years of unprecedented growth that has resulted in successive monthly highs.
Rents are currently 4.7% up on a year earlier, the slowest rate of growth since 2021.
The property website said a rising supply of rental homes to choose from was improving the balance of supply and demand, although there were typically still 10 applications being made for every rental property.
It also suggested that many tenants had shifted their focus towards the sales market due to continued steep competition for rentals and as borrowing costs were now down from cost of living crisis peaks.
Rightmove's property expert Colleen Babcock said: "While new tenants are still paying more than they were at this time last year, the pace of growth continues to slow.
"However, though this is the big picture of market activity, agents on the ground still tell us that the market is very hot, and some areas have improved more than others when it comes to the supply and demand balance."
The northeast of England was said to have seen the biggest boost to supply, with Wales the smallest.
Alex Bloxham, a partner and head of residential lettings at the consultancy Bidwells, said: "These figures suggest landlords are continuing to invest in their buy-to-let portfolios, while more tenants are choosing to stay put, likely due to continued macroeconomic uncertainty and the up-front costs involved in relocating."
The debt charity StepChange reacted to the figures by saying that they were unlikely to bring any immediate relief to millions of families grappling with higher bills.
Its recent polling suggested that 22% of people renting privately were always worried about money, with rents just one elevated cost to bear as many other bills such as those for food and energy show little sign of easing.
Water and council tax costs are also due to rise sharply from April.
Read more from Sky News:Ryanair profits nearly 10 times higherHobbycraft owner circles WH Smith
The charity's Richard Lane added: "We're pleased to see the Renters Rights Bill progressing through parliament, which will end section 21 'no fault' evictions - a long overdue piece of legislation.
"However, we've long called for strengthened protections for private renters facing financial hardship.
"Our research shows that a significant proportion of private renters are having to rely on credit just to cover their rent, which is unsustainable and will only trap people in a cycle of problem debt.
"If you are struggling with rent arrears or any other type of debt, free and impartial advice is available from charities like StepChange."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Delta overtakes American to become second-largest airline at Austin's airport
This story is part of the KXAN Data Hub, where numbers help tell the whole created several data-driven stories and databases on topics including weather and climate, politics, education, sports and growth in Texas. Each story in the KXAN Data Hub is updated as new data becomes available. AUSTIN (KXAN) — Delta Air Lines overtook American Airlines to become the second-largest airline at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in April, passenger data shows. Monthly passenger statistics for AUS are publicly available since January 2019. An airport spokesperson couldn't confirm if Delta had carried more passengers than American in a month prior to 2019, but told KXAN this was 'likely' the first time it happened in airport history, as Delta currently has its busiest schedule ever from AUS. AUS Data Hub: Passenger totals, busiest months and new flights in 2025 Delta flew 302,647 passengers in and out of Austin in April, while American carried 298,579 passengers. Southwest Airlines remains the largest airline by far, carrying more than 735,000 passengers in April alone. Throughout most of 2021, 2022 and 2023, American held a significant lead over Delta. In every month from March through December 2022, for example, American's passenger total was more than double that of Delta. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, when air travel from Austin all but ground to a halt, American maintained an advantage. Delta has been surging in recent months, with a slew of new nonstop flights from Austin. Since 2023, the airline has launched or announced 16 new direct routes, three of which are set to begin later this year. Only one of those new routes, to Harlingen, has since been canceled. Meanwhile, American launched six new routes from AUS since 2023, but all have been canceled since their launch. The airline has canceled 35 nonstop routes from Austin in total since the start of 2023, including international destinations in the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Mexico. Full list of new nonstop flights from AUS in 2025 Many of Delta's new routes are those dropped by American, including Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Orlando, Palm Springs, Panama City and Tampa. In the first four months of 2025, American flew more than 1.1 million people, accounting for 17.4% of AUS passengers. Delta flew a little more than 1 million people during the same timeframe — 16.1% of all passengers. Southwest has flown more than 2.6 million people, 41.6% of all passengers. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Effort to strip Fed of interest paying power seen likely to bring upheaval to markets
By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK (Reuters) -A Republican senator's plan to take away the Federal Reserve's power to pay banks interest on cash they park on central bank books could cause chaos for monetary policy implementation if it were implemented, market participants said. In recent days, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been speaking about this power and his desire to see it ended as part of what he views as an effort to save money by the federal government. Stripping the Fed of the longstanding power would save the government $1 trillion, Cruz said in a CNBC interview last week. The senator said then that he did not know if it was likely his effort would work but that it was certainly possible. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that Cruz had also lobbied President Donald Trump, who has long been at odds with the Fed, as well as Republican colleagues, about his idea. 'We're agonizing trying to find a $50 billion cut here and there. This is over a trillion dollars, big dollars in savings,' Cruz told Bloomberg, saying of the payments, 'half of it is going to foreign banks, which makes no sense.' Cruz's office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fed declined to comment. Cruz's effort is being treated cautiously by Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. "While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable," the matter must be considered under normal Senate procedures, Scott said in a statement. Any move on this must start with a hearing, Scott said, adding, "this is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated." The Fed's power to pay banks interest, granted by Congress, took effect in 2008 as the financial crisis dawned. It quickly gained prominence as part of a large-scale overhaul of the monetary policy architecture, as the Fed confronted the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. As it now stands, the Fed pays deposit-taking banks 4.4% for reserves. It uses another tool called the reverse repo facility to take in cash from money market funds and others, paying them 4.25%. Together, the two rates are designed to keep the federal funds rate, the central bank's main tool for influencing the economy, within the desired range. Paying financial firms for de facto loans of cash is essential for interest rate control due to the very large amount of liquidity created by bond buying stimulus efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed more than doubled the size of its balance sheet to a peak of $9 trillion, with asset purchases providing support to the economy beyond what the then near-zero short-term rates could deliver. If the Fed did not have the power to pay interest on deposits, the still substantial amount of liquidity sloshing around in markets would prevent it from controlling short-term rates. That said, concerns have long existed, even among some former central bankers, that paying banks money to deposit cash at the Fed is effectively a subsidy to banks. The other issue with paying interest on reserves is that it has led the Fed into an unprecedented period of loss-making. The Fed has been operating in the red because the interest rate it now has in place outstrips the income it earns off bonds it owns. Most analysts expect the loss-making to occur for some time to come. Fed losses mean that it is not handing over profits back to the Treasury, as it is required to do when it is in the green. Sums handed back to the Treasury over recent years contributed modestly to lowering deficits. Experts believe Cruz's plan would completely fail to achieve its goals and would instead cause huge upheaval in money markets. Barclays Capital economists said on Tuesday that ending the power would simply push the cash into the reverse repo facility, which means the central bank would still be paying lots of interest to financial firms, thus negating any deficit savings. J.P. Morgan strategists said in a note last week that under Cruz's plan, 'the Fed's ability to control money market rates may be compromised, complicating its efforts to guide broader financial conditions via the fed funds rate and other money market rates.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Effort to strip Fed of interest paying power seen likely to bring upheaval to markets
By Michael S. Derby NEW YORK (Reuters) -A Republican senator's plan to take away the Federal Reserve's power to pay banks interest on cash they park on central bank books could cause chaos for monetary policy implementation if it were implemented, market participants said. In recent days, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been speaking about this power and his desire to see it ended as part of what he views as an effort to save money by the federal government. Stripping the Fed of the longstanding power would save the government $1 trillion, Cruz said in a CNBC interview last week. The senator said then that he did not know if it was likely his effort would work but that it was certainly possible. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that Cruz had also lobbied President Donald Trump, who has long been at odds with the Fed, as well as Republican colleagues, about his idea. 'We're agonizing trying to find a $50 billion cut here and there. This is over a trillion dollars, big dollars in savings,' Cruz told Bloomberg, saying of the payments, 'half of it is going to foreign banks, which makes no sense.' Cruz's office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fed declined to comment. Cruz's effort is being treated cautiously by Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. "While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable," the matter must be considered under normal Senate procedures, Scott said in a statement. Any move on this must start with a hearing, Scott said, adding, "this is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated." The Fed's power to pay banks interest, granted by Congress, took effect in 2008 as the financial crisis dawned. It quickly gained prominence as part of a large-scale overhaul of the monetary policy architecture, as the Fed confronted the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. As it now stands, the Fed pays deposit-taking banks 4.4% for reserves. It uses another tool called the reverse repo facility to take in cash from money market funds and others, paying them 4.25%. Together, the two rates are designed to keep the federal funds rate, the central bank's main tool for influencing the economy, within the desired range. Paying financial firms for de facto loans of cash is essential for interest rate control due to the very large amount of liquidity created by bond buying stimulus efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed more than doubled the size of its balance sheet to a peak of $9 trillion, with asset purchases providing support to the economy beyond what the then near-zero short-term rates could deliver. If the Fed did not have the power to pay interest on deposits, the still substantial amount of liquidity sloshing around in markets would prevent it from controlling short-term rates. That said, concerns have long existed, even among some former central bankers, that paying banks money to deposit cash at the Fed is effectively a subsidy to banks. The other issue with paying interest on reserves is that it has led the Fed into an unprecedented period of loss-making. The Fed has been operating in the red because the interest rate it now has in place outstrips the income it earns off bonds it owns. Most analysts expect the loss-making to occur for some time to come. Fed losses mean that it is not handing over profits back to the Treasury, as it is required to do when it is in the green. Sums handed back to the Treasury over recent years contributed modestly to lowering deficits. Experts believe Cruz's plan would completely fail to achieve its goals and would instead cause huge upheaval in money markets. Barclays Capital economists said on Tuesday that ending the power would simply push the cash into the reverse repo facility, which means the central bank would still be paying lots of interest to financial firms, thus negating any deficit savings. J.P. Morgan strategists said in a note last week that under Cruz's plan, 'the Fed's ability to control money market rates may be compromised, complicating its efforts to guide broader financial conditions via the fed funds rate and other money market rates.'
