Updating post from Reddit.
Office for National Statistics: Private rent and house prices, UK: February 2025
Private Rents
- Average UK private rents increased by 8.7% in the 12 months to January 2025.
- Average rents increased to:
- £1,375 (8.8%) in England
- £780 (8.4%) in Wales
- £995 (6.2%) in Scotland
- In England, rents inflation was:
- Highest in London (11.0%)
- Lowest in Yorkshire and The Humber (5.3%)
House Prices
- Average UK house prices increased by 4.6%, to £268,000, in the 12 months to December 2024 (provisional estimate); this annual growth rate is up from 3.9% in the 12 months to November 2024.
- Average house prices increased to:
- £291,000 (4.3%) in England
- £208,000 (3.0%) in Wales
- £189,000 (6.9%) in Scotland
Crazy. It’s almost like hammering landlords with legislation, tax and a decade long shaming PR campaign has driven people out of the market, lowered supply and increased demand, driving up prices. Who could have seen that coming?!
It really is such a shame that when a landlord sells up, their property vanishes - unable to house anyone ever again.
Government policy on this obviously hasn't been good. But provision of housing (and maintaining it to a liveable standard) should be a profession - not a cottage industry for those seeking a passive income stream in retirement.
The issue is that you can increase tax and legislation to protect tenants, but only effectively if you also increase the supply of property. Throttling house supply and making the terms of being a landlord unfavourable is a lose lose for everyone.
I completely agree.
I genuinely feel sorry for London tenants. I only increase rent by RPI on renewals as I feel that's fair to both parties, but obviously at change of tenancies I will increase with the market. I think the increases at tenancy change have been insane since covid. My costs have gone up to, but market increases on decent but nothing special flats in London are ludicrous.
I always love this absolute paper argument that somehow when a landlord sells, the rental market magically doesn’t shrink.
If the landlord sells to a young person who has been living with their parents ie they currently share a house , so when a landlord sells to a buyer like this then there is 1 less rental property available because the new owner was sharing a property . The ONLY reason that rents are increasing is due to a reduction in the number of rental properties available coupled with increased demand.
The ONLY reason is greed. Everything else is a biproduct. It doesn't matter what reason you try to pin it on, the root cause of that reason is greed.
A landlord does not 'have' to charge an extortionate rate because there's one less rental property. You can cite "market forces" all you want, but it's a fancy term for someone realising they can juice more profit out of those poorer than them and then blame it on supply and demand. How about landlord's developing a social conscience , accepting they make plenty off of a passive income, and quit blaming the government and ripping off the public.
And I love the paper argument that these insane rental price increases are being driven by people being mean to landlords rather than basic supply (pitiful housebuilding numbers) and demand (high immigration).
People/Government being shit to landlords makes them leave the market. This surprises you how?
The media reported on record numbers of landlords leaving the market before all this happened.
People can make all the excuses they want and blame immigrants or whatever but the end result is the same.
None of that changes the basic reality that the primary driver of ALL housing price inflation is decades of chronic underbuilding that has failed to keep pace with population growth.
Sorry the government isn't subsidising you to cover your exposure to higher interest rates tho.
House building doesn’t give renters anywhere to live. So how exactly does house building solve the rental issues??
You rent in London from what I gather. Are you saying that if the built more houses you would buy one? Are there none around to buy?
I’m unsure what you mean about the government subsidising landlords, that’s never been a thing so again a pretty much non existent argument.
>House building doesn’t give renters anywhere to live
Yes it does - they're called houses.
>Are you saying that if the built more houses you would buy one? Are there none around to buy?
Creating more of a thing reduces its scarcity and therefore its price. This applies both to house prices and rent.
>I’m unsure what you mean about the government subsidising landlords, that’s never been a thing so again a pretty much non existent argument.
I was talking about the removal of various forms of tax relief that landlords have been complaining are forcing them to sell up.
You are either really thick or you are just arguing for the hell of it
A house builder building a house creates a house to buy, not to rent. Still needs someone to buy it first.
House building will NEVER hit the volumes needed to reduce house prices and that’s deliberate, our economy relies on house prices being stable. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Lastly I assume you are talking about interest on mortgages - or you are just making crap up like the rest of your argument - every other industry in this country can write off interest, including commercial landlords, not allowing landlords to write off interest just pushes up the rent to tenants so taking glee in that is turkeys voting for Christmas but whatever, it took money out the poorest peoples pockets and handed it right to the government and the weak minded cried ‘bloody landlords’
>A house builder building a house creates a house to buy, not to rent. Still needs someone to buy it first.
Yes, and if they then rent it out (or rent out their previous house) it creates somewhere for renters to live. Who's the thick one here?
>House building will NEVER hit the volumes needed to reduce house prices
The Atlantic: The city of Austin built a lot of homes. Now rent is falling
It can and has been done elsewhere. The sky didn't fall in.
>our economy relies on house prices being stable
British house prices have been anything but stable over the last 30 years. But I suppose violent lurches in an upwards direction are fine since they've personally benefitted you.
>every other industry in this country can write off interest
Industry is defined as businesses which produce goods for sale. Can I ask what goods you are producing?
You forgot lifestyle under demand.
I think the argument is that the buyer is either another landlord, so the rental market is unchanged, or a former renter, so the demand drops too.
I can see that. But I imagine those transactions are the minority
Who do you think is the majority buyer from a landlord then?
It's a meme that a housing loss in the rental market (supply) also indicates a reduction in tenants (demand), overlooking various factors. Put simply not all buyers are former tenants. A REIT is passive income. A rental property is not.
We have seen how the professionals handle property at Grenfell.
That property may well vanish from the property market, or at the very least go "out of circulation"
Why do people struggle to understand that?
It is not 1 - 1. And it is not necessarily a renter becoming a home owner when these transactions occur.
EG my current house was a 5 bed HMO housing 6 tenants at im guessing £500 per room. Now its a family home housing 2 of us, and would rent out for 3k+ a month.
It is not a zero sum game - you need landlords to keep property in circulation.
I didn't say it was 1 - 1.
What I said is that I do not think the provision of rental housing should be a side gig, cottage industry or retirement plan for an army of amateurs.
Great. Who's going to provide that housing for renters then?
The government? Large corpos? LOL
>The government? Large corpos?
Sounds great!
You wouldnt know what was good for you if it came and slapped you in the face.
Unreal stupidity.
This is why I get random amateur retirees to provide other essentials to me, like water, food and medicine.
Can't trust companies or the state to provide important things like those, right?
It's one of the things the government should be doing, yes.
Oh fantastic idea! Lets take a perfectly functioning part of the free market which provides essential services to the population and regulate it into oblivion and then shift the burden for providing said service onto the tax payer!
SWEET.
> Oh fantastic idea! Let’s take an exploited part of the free market which provides essential services to the population and regulate it. Then shift the funnelling of housing benefits into private landlords pockets to local councils instead!
> SWEET.
FTFY
Perfectly functioning? Perfectly functioning? Don't make me laugh it hasn't been perfectly functioning since at least the mid 90s.
Perfectly functioning at generating profit, maybe, but it's definitely not been perfectly functional for providing liveable housing. Since right-to-buy took off, affordable housing has just disappeared. The poor and disabled, like myself, have literally nowhere to turn but slumlords and it's been that way since I was a child. I'm 40 now
It's not rocket science to keep tenants happy. And often a retired with a settled tenant is more likely to let rent rises slide a little. That simply doesn't happen with corporations.
The report we are replying to completely disproves your theory
In the case of HMOs though it’s not 1 to 1 because you’re reducing living standards rather than creating new housing - it’s the same space with more rentoids crammed in
There are a million scenarios to illustrate the point.
The fact remains, selling a rental property decreases rental stock and pushes rents up.
HMOs the effect is multiplied, and although HMO's may be seen as 'unethical' or some other left wing nonsense, they are an essential part of the property market for students and young professionals.
Well if renters lived in the same conditions as the average homeowner, then selling a rental property wouldn’t push rents up because the demand wouldn’t change. It would be a 1-1 relationship. The cases where it’s not a 1-1 relationship is due to renters living in lesser conditions not because the landlord has invented some more space.
I can’t speak for others but I have brought many properties back into the market. Properties which were plots of land, condemned, commercial use or otherwise unmortgagable or inhabitable.
There’s an assumption landlords are taking FTB homes which I’m sure is the case in some situations but many FTB homes don’t make business sense. Personally I wouldn’t be caught dead buying a FTB new build.
It’s also important to consider that a housing market needs to be diverse. Landlords often have more densely populated properties, offer a housing options for those who can’t buy (poor credit, need flexibility, too old/ young, not eligible for social housing, new to the country etc.
it's not that (alone) that's driving up house prices. I just had my contract come up for renewal, which contains a clause that says rent will increase by the RPI (3.5%). The initial email from the letting agent about the renewal said that market rates have gone up by 16%, but the landlord "wanted to make a competitive offer" so they were *only* going put in a 9.3% increase. I pointed out the clause in the contract, which got a response of "we are prepared to offer it to you for an increase of 7%".
There was nothing *forcing* the landlord to demand a higher increase than the contract said they would. But they did anyway. It's just pure greed.
Exactly. I've been living in my property for 4 years. Around a year and a half in to my tenancy, the rent went up by 25%. I'm now moving out and I can see from the ad that they've raised the rent again, so that it's now 50% higher than it was when I moved in. I've been renting since 2013 (hopefully not for much longer) and the rent raises in the last few years have been eyewatering. Far above inflation or earnings growth. Who else gets to decide that they want a 50% pay rise every few years?
Exact same thing happened in the last house I moved out of 18months ago. Extortionate rent for a tiny house.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Pure greed for some of them.
Landlords don't supply housing.
Landlords provide housing like touts provide events tickets.
Yhea because touts pay the mortgage on the stadium, pay for the refurb, pay for the safety certs, maintain the white goods and advertise the concert all themselves. Bore off you mug.
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
Insanity.
Whoever does weather the storm will likely come out the other side with a good return in the long run.
I feel bad for all the small boomer Landlords who have invested in rentals rather than pensions but are about to get hit by a ton of tax.
It’ll be interesting what large corporate landlords try to fill the void and how they work in practice. I wager they’ll be less likely to make silly mistakes or bodge jobs but more likely to pursue tenants for damages and lower customer care.
What ton of tax?
CGT if they sell and income then CGT/ inheritance if they don’t decide to sell.
Quite right
How would this work for Ltd company purchases?
No different really.
Arguably IHT could be worse.
I wager it may change with time or failing that there’s more in the way of corporate governance which can be done with companies that can’t be done with individuals. Especially with HMRC ruling out the 118 scheme or Partnership to Corporate.
Absolutely could change, especially given the direction things are leaning.
I will equally feel back for all the other boomers who invested in pensions rather than other kinds of assets... if you look at the stock market we are currently at the mother of all peaks... conditions are very ripe for a huge crash
Never thought I’d catch Warren Buffet on here!
I agree, it’s keeping me up at nights. I don’t think we’re looking at a small correction but a proper crash; something no one will be able to hide from.
Thankfully I have my war chest and have removed my investments in the S&P but there’s not much I can do with the property portfolio especially those still being built.
Won’t someone please think of the boomers!
Womp womp. Time to sell up!
Don't forget the guaranteed annual rent increase inline with the market.
What storm?
>lower customer care
As someone who's rented in London for the best part of the last decade, it's hard to see how corporates could do any worse on this!
What makes you think a unaccountable faceless Texan Pension Fund would look after tenants any better than your neighbour?
My last landlord lived in Australia, so was generally uncontactable on the day. Despite this, he insisted on managing the property himself.
The sink in our downstairs toilet, broken when we arrived, was still not fixed when we left 18 months later. (He also provably lied to us to try to get us to sign a new contract that would have allowed him to end our tenancy earlier so he could sell up.)
I have similar stories for every flat I have lived in in London, to varying degrees of severity.
I'm not saying all landlords are useless scumbags, or that corporate landlords would necessarily be better. Just that in my experience, I don't see how my customer service experience could be any worse.
In my experience all landlords are useless scam bags. And they are like this because the government makes them like this. Many MPs and government officials are landlords themselves so they spend all their power to protect landlords and their profits at the expense of tenants.
Generally the people with good landlords only move when they need to which means the good landlord properties come onto the market far less often and bad landlords end up kicking the tenants who want a working toilet out putting their properties back into the musical chairs far more often.
you're quite dumb for not getting a sink fixed in 18 months, whoever your landlord was. you probably would have not got that fixed even if the house was yours!
Bigger target. More money in it for attorneys pursuing bad actors. PR matters when you've got a large pot of cash.
I'll take a corporate landlord anyday. There's an Orwell quote that sums it up:
> "I found—one might expect it, perhaps—that the small landlords are usually the worst. It goes against the grain to say this, but one can see why it should be so. Ideally, the worst type of slum landlord is a fat wicked man, preferably a bishop, who is drawing an immense income from extortionate rents. Actually, it is a poor old woman who has invested her life’s savings in three slum houses, inhabits one of them, and tries to live on the rent of the other two—never, in consequence, having any money for repairs."
My friends don’t like it when I tell them the problem with lots of landlords is how poor they are 😂
You should hear what HAs and councils dont do for tenants. Social housing has a shocking issue with sub-standard property and tenants are unable to do anything as they fall under the Regulator of Social Housing which is toothless in enforcing repairs and standards.
Corporate ownership in the private sector will simply mean your new private landlord will have in house legal teams challenging every tenant complaint. The days of the small landlord not pursuing arrears (Section 21 was quicker and ‘no fault’) will be well and truly over, and every tenant will be pursued and held to their tenancy conditions by the letter. Rents will rise again as the regional monopolys spread. A corporate private sector, is not good for tenants.
>your new private landlord will have in house legal teams challenging every tenant complaint
Landlords already do this (on top of ludicrous claims on checkout to claw as much of the deposit back as they can).
>every tenant will be pursued and held to their tenancy conditions by the letter
I follow my tenancy conditions so this is fine by me.
>Rents will rise again as the regional monopolys spread
That would be awful. Thank god they haven't been rising at a ridiculous rate since 2020 - oh wait.
I also don't accept that big companies = higher charges. Which is generally cheaper: local butchers/greengrocers or big supermarkets? The latter. Why? Because of economies of scale and competition.
>A corporate private sector, is not good for tenants
I'll happily take my chances thanks!
Absolutely fine having a view. What we do have is an example of it happening.
https://www.graingerplc.co.uk/search?location=all_London&size=any+size
Landlords have choked the market and made it near impossible to own a home. More selling up is a win in my book.
This is very true. Councils are some of the worse LLs and like you said corporate LLs will chase you to the end of the earth.
It may lead to a defacto black listing of some tenants where if one large Landlord owns huge portfolios which blocks you from many options and then other corporate landlords will ask them for a review which in turn will cut out most of the market.
You’re on the wrong subreddit to post stuff like this 😭
Someone needs to tell 'em!
Yes I agree. Many many years ago I rented a flat. It had a plank to the door, you couldn’t go in the basement as the LL had locked it due to all the mould and it was a weed den before we’d moved in.
I guess my comment on power customer care was less to do with the property itself and more administrative. At least private LLs are often a call away.
I think it’s quite rare to deal with the landlord directly anyway. I’ve rented 7 properties over 9 years and never dealt directly with the landlord, only ever a letting company, I’ve never known anyone rent directly from a landlord. The letting company operates like a corporate landlord, only worse due to the fact that they have to ask the landlord to approve any required maintenance, which of course they never do approve because they don’t want to pay and it’s not them dealing with the tenant.
It's only going to go up from here! And labour will still scratch their heads wondering why prices increase as the supply gets reduced
Salaries at 5.2%, so yet another net loss for all working tenants, who continue to see their living standards get worse and worse and worse every year.
The 5.2% was mainly due to public sector wage increases handed out by the new government. Private sector workers didn't get anything like that rise.
Yeah that's not quite right, average increases are private sector 6.2%, public sector 4.7%. Average private sector beat average public sector by a good amount.
Very frustrating situation for renters, we give about half of our income to a landlord, and each year rents go up more than our income. Very soon we’ll be working and giving 75% away in rent, spending 20% heating a poorly insulated home, and using the last 5% to scrape some food together.
Housing costs should be around 25% of income according to irrational finance expert Dave Ramsey.
34.2%, most skewed by insane rents in London (38%). In Scotland it's only 25%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/752217/household-rent-to-income-ratio-by-region-uk/
Housing affordability is still pretty good in the UK compared to many countries.
My friend is admin for a letting agency..
Their rental properties are falling off the system left right and centre..
I honestly don’t know how our kids are even going to reach the foundations of the paving slabs that the property ladder rests upon.
My kiddo has roots in 3 villages ( family, school, and current home)
They keep promising “local housing for young families” .. all the houses are half a £million.
They promised GP surgeries.. all they did was extended the carpark for the GP surgery that NOONE can actually book an appointment for .
They promised schools …
No new schools , our beautiful village schools and our lovely teachers are walking out because of NO support, NO extensions. NO new teachers …
Solar panels are popping up on our agricultural land ….. why o why … if it’s sooo important.. why aren’t Persimmon and other building construction companies being forced to put solar on all the new builds ?
Why do we import meat ?? ( for example, we have the best lamb on the planet. .. the Romney Marsh lamb )… yet we import New Zealand lamb ….. and we export Romney lamb to New Zealand!!! )
Rant .. I’m sorry , nothing makes any fu*king sense!
I’ve just put two of mine up by 10% simply to cover the costs of the new mortgages , the agent I use said to me the going rate for a 2 bed is £1500 a month , and my new rent charge will be £1250 , I can’t believe how much they have risen locally to me , I’m happy to charge less knowing I have and will help a good tenant .
He went on to say if you now look on right move , the asking price say for a 2 bed will be £1800 , and every five/six days it will get reduced by £100 until someone bites , absolutely crazy so they get the maximum rent possible .
I’m the same. Can scarcely believe the rents around here. I’m not putting mine up unless I need to
That’s the way life works. Pay the rent or run to the hills.
I’d be careful with that tactic - most renters sort by newest listed and won’t touch one that’s been on more than a week as there’s likely something wrong with it, so on average you’ll actually get less than if you just listed it at a competitive rate.
The government should do tax incentives for landlords to encourage more people into the market
They aren't smart enough to do that and it goes against their anti landlord mentality.
And drive up property values even further so it's even harder for first time buyers?
Or just build more houses and relax planning permission… !
They will never build more houses and they will never relax the planning permissions, though they should do both
How are tips doing?
Hasn't the UK population increased by 10 million since 2003? That means more and more people need housing on a small island, with a limited amount of houses and land.
Yeah I live in a 2 bedroom flat in a pretty crap area, near Walsall and the rent is 850 a month, that is absolutely unexplainable to me. Constant mould issues despite ventilating the property even in winter. Buildings main door lock has been broken for weeks, not the nicest area, flat opposite is a revolving door of families arriving and leaving with suitcases in the late hours. But yeah 850 a month to not be allowed to have my own pets, put any pictures up, plus bills definitely leaves me enough to save for a house. My favourite thing in the tenancy agreement I see every time is under the sound or nuisance sections “no use of loud items like vacuum cleaners, no singing etc” deluded.
What would you rather do landlords ? Keep the same rent on perfect tenants , or put the rent up and risk they leave ?
Landlords are such price gouging cunts man