
How inheriting a second home became the ultimate embarrassment for millennials
For generations, Britons have aspired to buy their own piece of the countryside – a second home to provide the backdrop for family holidays year in year out.
But the dream of owning a second home is slowly dying. Data from Hamptons shows the percentage of sales to a second home buyer has fallen from 2pc in 2016 to 0.8pc in 2025 – the lowest figure on record.
Buying a second home has never been less of an inviting prospect, not least because successive tax raids have made buying and maintaining one increasingly unaffordable.
For millennials, who are buying later, and 'maxing themselves out more than previous generations', buying a second home is all but impossible, says Aneisha Beveridge, of Hamptons.
'This limits their ability to withdraw money from their main residence to purchase a second home, or indeed save up enough money on the side,' she says. 'Likely, money which was enjoyed or invested by previous generations at the same point will be tied up for longer by millennials' and Gen Z's mortgage bills.'
According to lawyers and wealth managers, it seems no one particularly wants to inherit a second home either.
'We do see an increased resistance to inheriting real estate and a preference for cash gifts,' says Natasha Southam, of law firm Seddons GSC. 'Owning numerous properties can be seen as burdensome and prohibitive to a mobile lifestyle, which is often a priority.'
Younger generations are also embarrassed at the idea of owning a holiday home, says Mark Wood, of Everest Funeral Concierge and former chief executive of Prudential, who is accustomed to helping families with end-of-life planning.
Many fear they may be accused of hollowing out communities by hoovering up housing stock and inflating house prices.
'I remember the local antagonism in Wales years ago when people would vandalise properties. There is a similar anxiety among younger generations,' Mr Wood adds. 'Do they really want to be the ones turning up in their estate car and unloading stuff from a central London branch of Waitrose?'
The millennials who stand to inherit such homes often grew up in the age of low cost airlines and a social media-driven desire to see as much of the world as possible.
'If you can go to Lisbon for £15, why would you want to spend four hours driving to Devon?' adds Mr Wood.
The twilight years of baby boomers will mark one of the biggest wealth transfers between generations in centuries, Ms Southam says. Baby boomers account for £2.89 trillion in housing wealth alone, Savills data shows, and the lion's share of that wealth will likely be passed to their descendants.
But consensus among experts is that inheriting a second home is more hassle than it's worth.
'A lot of people underestimate the admin burden of inheriting a second home,' says Sam Grice, of Octopus Legacy, a succession planning firm. 'You've got the general upkeep of the property, and they might have to continue paying a mortgage.'
Anyone inheriting a second home will also have to navigate a potentially eye-watering inheritance tax bill and, following changes brought in this year, pay twice the rate of council tax.
Inheriting a second home also comes with a sting in the tail for would-be first-time buyers, who have been kept on the rental market by surging house prices. Indeed, the average age of a first-time buyer has crept up from 30 to 34 since 1980, according to Hamptons data.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves raised the stamp duty surcharge from 3pc to 5pc for second home purchases, a move seemingly aimed at giving first-time buyers an edge on landlords.
'But let's say you're renting in London, and you inherit a third of a Cornish home. If you then go and buy your own property, you'll have to pay an extra 5pc in stamp duty,' says James Ward, of law firm Kingsley Napley.
'I often suggest that people don't give property to children until they've bought their own home.'
In addition, arguments can erupt between siblings – where there is a disagreement as to how to share a holiday home, or even if any of them want it in the first place.
'We tend to draft ownership agreements between families, but it's a liquid asset. What happens if someone wants to take the money out?' says Mr Ward.
Mr Wood, of Everest Funeral Concierge, adds: 'Unless siblings are close and have a lot of money, it leads to disputes – what weeks you take, who is allowed to use it and who pays for repairs. It's a constant battlefield.'
Sometimes it is the parents who are pushing for children to inherit properties they are, at best, agnostic about.
'They become the backdrop for family holidays and memories,' says Mr Wood. 'People want these places passed down because they represent childhood, and they want their grandchildren to have the same experiences.'
There is also some evidence that Labour's war on second home owners is working as intended.
Jennie Hancock, of West Sussex buying agency Property Acquisitions, says second homes forced on to the market by tax changes are indeed being snapped up by downsizers.
'The lack of suitable properties to move to has been a major deterrent for downsizers in recent years, but as second home owners sell up, downsizers are finally seeing the opportunity to make their move,' she says.
In any case, boomers whose pensions will soon be subject to inheritance tax following Ms Reeves's maiden Budget are increasingly seeing second homes as blows to be softened.
'We are seeing more people with second homes taking out equity releases as part of their inheritance tax planning,' says Adam Canavan, of Bowmore Wealth Group.
'The same rules apply to second homes in Europe, but rather than just releasing equity, we are also seeing people sell those properties altogether. In both cases, the goal is the same – to reduce the value of the taxable estate and ultimately pass more wealth on to their family.'
Hashtags

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


Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Centrica, Energy Capital Partners to buy National Grid's LNG terminal for $2 bln
Aug 14 (Reuters) - British Gas owner Centrica (CNA.L), opens new tab will jointly buy National Grid's (NG.L), opens new tab Grain LNG terminal with U.S.-based infrastructure investor Energy Capital Partners (ECP), it said on Thursday, for an enterprise value of about 1.5 billion pounds ($2.04 billion). The LNG terminal, owned and operated by a National Grid subsidiary, is located on the Isle of Grain in Kent, in southeast England. It is the largest LNG import terminal in Europe by tank capacity and one of the largest in the world. "The Isle of Grain terminal is a strategic asset that will support the UK's energy security for many decades to come, keeping energy flowing reliably and affordably to households and businesses across the country as we transition to net zero," Centrica CEO Chris O'Shea said in a statement. LNG has become a vital source of gas for Europe, especially after the Russia-Ukraine conflict and as the subsequent Western sanctions on Russia disrupted energy markets. The resulting price surge continues to weigh on British consumers. Centrica said its 50% share of the equity investment in the terminal was about 200 million pounds, with roughly 1.1 billion pounds of the total deal value being debt related to the project. The agreement, first reported by the Financial Times on Wednesday, follows Centrica's bid in July to hold a 15% stake in the planned Sizewell C nuclear project. ECP is one of the largest private owners of natural gas generation and infrastructure assets in the U.S., which has become a major export hub for LNG. Subject to regulatory and national security approvals, the LNG transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of this year, Centrica said. ($1 = 0.7365 pounds)


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lloyds becomes UK's first bank to introduce £300 rule from end of this month
Lloyds customers will soon be able to use a new app feature to deposit coins and banknotes into their account at the same time as dropping off a parcel or picking up a pint of milk in stores. The feature uses a barcode, enabling people to deposit up to £300 per day in notes and coins, up to a maximum of £600 a month. People will be able to pay money in at more than 30,000 locations which have PayPoint. Nick Wiles, chief executive of PayPoint, said the network 'provides a vast range of essential services at the heart of communities across the UK, for everything from banking, utility, parcel, cash and government services. 'The ability of Lloyds customers to make cash deposits into their accounts at over 30,000 PayPoint locations will deliver more convenience and access for customers close to where they live.' After showing the barcode, which will be scanned, and depositing the cash, the money will appear in accounts within minutes, Lloyds said. The feature will be available from August 26. Customers of Lloyds and its brands Bank of Scotland and Halifax will be able to access it through the 'everyday' area in their app, generating a barcode, which remains valid for two hours. Customers can also continue using any branch of Lloyds, Halifax or Bank of Scotland for their everyday banking, or pay in cash at more than 11,500 post offices, the bank said. Gabby Collins, payments director at Lloyds, said: 'Our latest app feature now allows customers to pay in cash at their local PayPoint in just a few minutes – ideal if they are popping in for milk or dropping off a parcel.'


The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A policy that benefited the richest and cost the UK £100bn: it's long past time to end the fuel duty freeze
Nothing speaks so eloquently of the rundown state of Britain than potholes on the roads. Motorists rightly complain of the damage caused to their vehicles. Cyclists risk serious injury every time they mount their bikes. Increased road use from a rising population is one reason for the problem. Cuts to repair budgets are another. Fixing the problem will be expensive, with one estimate putting the cost of mending potholes in England and Wales at a hefty £17bn. Complaints about the state of the roads have made governments reluctant to arouse the ire of motoring lobby groups by raising fuel excise duty – the tax paid at the pump on fuel. The last chancellor to do so was Alistair Darling 15 years ago. The cumulative cost to the exchequer of the freezes and cuts to fuel duty since 2010 is put at £130bn – a colossal sum given the struggle governments have had to balance the books during that time. In reality, the days are numbered for fuel duty. Of the 34m vehicles on the UK's roads, 1.6m are fully electric, but that figure will rise steadily over time. Once petrol and diesel vehicles are phased out completely, the £24.4bn currently raised from fuel duty will dwindle to zero. That represents a sizeable and permanent hit to the public finances. Rachel Reeves has more immediate things to worry about. The weakness of the economy means the chancellor is at grave risk of breaking her self-imposed rule that day-to-day government spending should be matched by tax receipts. Reeves fears that breaking the rule would incur the wrath of the financial markets, while cutting spending would incur the wrath of Labour MPs. So she is scrabbling around for tax increases that don't break Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, VAT or employee national insurance contributions. This is not going to be easy. One estimate last week said Reeves will need to find more than £50bn to stick to her fiscal rule with a reasonable margin for error. Even though other forecasts suggest the figure may be lower than that, there will still be difficult choices to make. Faced with these pressures, Reeves should do two things. First, she should end the freeze on fuel duty, which has been kept in place no matter whether the cost of petrol and diesel is high or low. It is not just that Reeves could well do with the several billion pounds that a rise in fuel duty would harvest. Fuel duty is now a third lower, in real terms, than it was when Darling was at the Treasury, effectively cutting the cost of motoring and so creating incentives to drive more. Increased congestion and the potholed roads are consequences of that. The stated rationale for the protracted freeze since 2010 is that it helps hard-pressed motorists, but the main beneficiaries have not been white-van man but the better off, who drive more, own more vehicles and buy gas-guzzling SUVs. The richest fifth of households have benefited twice as much from the fuel duty freeze as the poorest fifth. Raising fuel duty in the budget should be a no-brainer for Reeves. But the chancellor also needs to come up with a plan for what to do once the era of all-electric vehicles finally arrives, and here there is an obvious solution: road pricing. Conceptually, there should be little problem with this idea. People expect to pay more for a train journey in rush hours. Hotels charge more for rooms on a Friday or Saturday when demand is higher. The same principle should apply to roads. There are reasons why ministers are reluctant to grasp this nettle. Fuel duty, while a regressive tax, is easy to understand. There are no issues with privacy and surveillance, as there would be with road pricing. Governments are sensitive to charges that they are planning to wage war on motorists. Given that only 5% of vehicles are electric currently, the transition may take longer than originally envisaged. No question, doing nothing has its attractions. But the costs of inaction will grow over time. A report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) said the loss of tax revenue from cars would be £10bn by 2030, £20bn by 2035 and £30bn by 2040. This would inevitably lead to chunky tax increases. Reducing the cost of motoring by continually freezing fuel duty would lead to more and longer traffic jams. Those still driving petrol and diesel vehicles would face a triple whammy: spending longer in traffic; paying higher taxes elsewhere to compensate for the lost fuel-duty revenue from those who transferred to electric vehicles; and paying three to four times more for tax and fuel than those who drive EVs. The TBI report outlined the four ways road pricing might work. Drivers could face a flat-rate charge for each mile they drive; costs could vary according to geographic area or specific roads, with costs increased in areas where congestion was higher; road users could be charged for each minute they spend driving; and finally an 'Uberised' model, where charges vary dynamically on the road used and the time of travel. Technically, it would be possible to make any of the approaches – or a combination of them – work. It speaks volumes that the report was published four years ago this month, since when inertia has reigned supreme. That needs to change because the do-nothing option is really no option at all. Larry Elliott is a Guardian columnist