
Why the worst of the landlord exodus may be over
For years, the rental market has been battered by an exodus of landlords as successive governments' crackdowns have made it ever tougher to turn a profit.
The number of UK properties available to let hit an all-time low of 284,000 in March, tumbling 18pc in a year, according to analytics firm TwentyCi. The figure is 23pc lower than before the pandemic.
The market has been saturated by the huge number of ex-rental properties that have been put up for sale. In the first quarter of this year, 15.6pc of properties newly for sale had been rented at some point during the past three years, up from just 9.3pc at the start of 2023, according to TwentyCi.
The supply shock has driven up rents, which were 4.5pc higher on average in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the same period the year before, according to Rightmove data.
But the worst of the landlord exodus may have passed – and pressure on tenants may begin to finally ease.
Smaller landlords squeezed out
It has been a tough period for landlords. Tax credits on mortgage interest for landlords were gradually slashed between 2017 and 2020, down from 40pc for higher-rate taxpayers to a flat rate of 20pc.
Interest rates leapt, with buy-to-let mortgages at the sharper end of the increases, squeezing landlord profits even as rents rose. And thanks to Chancellor Rachel Reeves's maiden Budget, landlords now pay an extra 5pc stamp duty surcharge on additional property purchases.
A major sweep of reforms designed to protect tenants was introduced to Parliament in 2023, and is set to take effect in July, which will ban no-fault evictions, fixed-term tenancies, bidding wars and mid-contract price hikes.
Rental properties that fall short of energy efficiency standards are also set to be banned by 2030, with landlords facing an average bill of £10,000 to make sure their homes are compliant.
The tax changes that began taking effect in 2017 arrested the growth of the private rental sector, which has been split between landlords who can afford to operate in a much tougher environment, and those that cannot.
This has caused it to undergo a major restructuring in recent years, explains Richard Donnell of Zoopla. Smaller landlords have struggled and sold up while larger ones have actually grown.
'The number of landlords with one or two properties has fallen, as the smaller landlords have been more likely to leave. They didn't buy a property to have as a business… Almost 40pc of landlords bought their first property to live in, so there are a lot of accidental landlords in the business.'
In 2016, over 60pc of landlords owned just one property, and under 10pc of landlords owned five or more – today, just 45pc of landlords own a single rental property, while 17pc own five or more.
More significantly, single-property landlords are responsible for just 21pc of tenancies, while the minority of landlords with five or more properties provide nearly half. This change in the make-up of the rental sector has made it more resilient, and it has adapted to the challenges it faces today, argues Donnell.
'We're coming up to a decade since the private rental sector's growth began to stall,' he adds. 'I think we're through the worst of it now.'
Many landlords who only owned one or two properties may have initially purchased them for the potential for house price growth. But that has stalled in recent years – the average UK house price jumped 10.4pc in 2021 according to Nationwide, but was 4.7pc last year.
As mortgage rates have risen, smaller landlords with higher debt ratios have seen their margins plummet. Today, just 30pc of landlords have mortgages with a loan-to-value of over 50pc, according to Zoopla.
Donnell adds: 'Back in the day, house prices were roaring away, and [landlords] didn't need to think about cash flow. Now, you need to have low levels of debt to make it work.
'Those who bought properties to live in and ended up renting them out [have been forced out of the market by] tax changes, rising running costs, and mortgage rate changes.'
Threats are not existential for remaining landlords
The larger, wealthier landlords that remain in the sector are more equipped to deal with the challenges, says Lucian Cook, of estate agent Savills.
'Wealthier landlords can deal with higher levels of regulation – they can spread risk with some tenants who do not perform across a wide number of properties. It is much more painful if you have bad tenants and just one or two properties.' Landlords with larger portfolios can also deal better with higher energy standards, he adds.
'If you're a landlord without lots of debt and leverage, the Renters' Rights Bill [due to come in later this year] shouldn't scare you too much,' adds Richard Donnell.
The shift towards a more professional sector can also be seen by the rise in the number of landlords setting up limited companies to make their businesses more profitable, which is at a record high, according to data from estate agent Hamptons. Around 61,000 limited companies were created in 2024 for buy-to-let purposes, up from just 50,000 the year prior.
'[To shift into this company structure] is really expensive because of stamp duty and capital gains tax,' explains Hamptons' Aneisha Beveridge. 'Landlords wouldn't do that unless they were planning on staying in buy-to-let for a few years. They are adapting and taking shelter in these limited companies instead of offloading entirely.'
Gross annual yields from residential rental properties are on the rise – in Manchester, they sit at 6.9pc, up from 6pc in 2022, according to Zoopla's rental index. In London, yields remain relatively weak at 4.9pc, but have risen from under 4pc in 2021.
'The undersupply of private rented stock has been entrenched,' adds Cook. 'The landlords who have remained in the sector have benefited from some rental growth along the way. Even the more indebted ones, with mortgage rates falling slightly, combined with rental growth, have strengthened their resolve somewhat.'
A boost for first-time buyers
While landlords that remain in the rental sector are unlikely to be forced out of it, the growing barriers to entry are putting off new ones, Beveridge explains.
'The hurdles to invest in buy-to-let are much higher; you have to know what you're doing now more than ever before. Just 10pc of homes are being bought by landlords.' This is a record low, down from 16pc in 2015.
Donnell adds: 'Consumers are waking up to the running costs of property. Higher mortgage rates, gas bills, council tax, maintenance… Everything is going up.'
A sluggish sales market has been made worse by a hike in stamp duty, including for thousands of first-time buyers, some of whom face an additional £6,250 in taxes. This has meant that some landlords have only held on to their properties as they have not been able to fetch a price they are happy with.
But this may be about to change as the Bank of England relaxes stress-testing, with lenders set to allow borrowers to take out mortgages of up to £40,000 more than previously allowed. This will give first-time buyers at the top of the rental market a boost, many of whom will be looking at purchasing previously rented homes, as they tend to be cheaper.
'A relaxation of mortgage regulations, which gives first-time buyers more buying power to step into the shoes of buy-to-let landlords, means you could have a second wave of the less committed landlords looking to sell,' adds Cook.
Beveridge points out that there may be a number of landlords who are yet to refinance on to more expensive mortgages.
'It won't be until 2027 that that will be fully bedded in, due to five-year fixed rate mortgages [which began in 2022]. We might see some people choose to sell as a result of that, but for the majority of people it's already happened.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palace co-owner John Textor would sell shares for Europa League chance
Crystal Palace co-owner John Textor is willing to sell his shares in the club in order to ensure the Eagles can enter next season's Europa League, according to reports. The American, whose Eagle Football Group owns 43 per cent of Palace, has imperilled the club's chance of a first-ever European campaign owing to his involvement with Ligue 1 side Lyon, but is ready to offload his stake to his fellow co-owners in order to bring the saga to an end. UEFA does not allow clubs with the same ownership to compete in the same European competitions in a season. As well as his stake in Palace, the 59-year-old has a controlling stake in the French club, also via Eagle Football. However it is also reported that the European governing body does not consider Textor's influence at Selhurst Park to be decisive and is leaning towards allowing the club into the Europa League regardless. The PA news agency understands no formal decision is likely on Palace's fate until the end of June. Textor has previously spoken of his frustration at how little influence his stake entitles him to, over football matters. Victory for Oliver Glasner's side over Manchester City in last month's FA Cup final gave them their first major trophy and with it a first crack at Europe. However, Nottingham Forest have since written to UEFA to challenge Palace's Europa League spot and in the hope of taking their place. Forest's owner Evangelos Marinakis, who also owns Greek side Olympiacos, placed his shares in the club in a blind trust before the governing body's March 1 deadline, anticipating Nuno Espirito Santo's side's European qualification. At present Forest, who finished seventh in last season's Premier League, are set to enter the Conference League but would take Palace's Europa League place, should they be deemed ineligible.


Times
18 minutes ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.


Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review
Mr Lyons wasn't convinced by the numbers, ' Early in her speech the Chancellor said, is the plan credible, and the answer unfortunately is, no.' 'T he starting position is debt is very high, and I think we're in the early stages of Britain going into a debt crisis. If you're looking for good news, it might be that we're not the only country facing this problem; but today the Chancellor gave a speech that I think lacked a lot of the detail.' Allison is not convinced by the claims the economy is stabilising, ' We know it is not true, and we are already starting to see the impact on employment and on businesses. We know payrolls have fallen, that employment's fallen by over 250,000 since Rachel Reeves' budget. This is not an economy where you should be taking the gambles that she's taking. Where is the growth going to come from?'