The latest report by Savills, quoted over the weekend in the FT, confirms what we've been seeing on the ground. Landlords ARE exiting. The stats show that the number of ex-rental properties on the market has increased by 28% over the last 2 years and that is a clear trend line rather than a one-off.

Savills research also examined whether buy‑to‑let properties listed for sale ultimately changed tenure, finding that 14% of those which sold were purchased by other landlords, effectively saying that 86% are not returning to the private rented sector.

At the same time stock advertised to rent has fallen by 17% over the last two years.

The press release is below but the stats are aligning with the anecdotal evidence that we see every week among landlords and independent agents we work with. The PRS is shrinking at the moment. It is hard to see how that trend will reverse given that the number of ex-rental properties on the market is growing still.

https://www.savills.co.uk/insight-and-opinion/savills-news/390500/700-former-homes-to-rent-listed-for-sale-every-day--says-savills

Spending yesterday with landlord’s at the Kent Landlord Investment show we’d say 80% of portfolio landlords I spoke to had or were in the process of reducing their portfolio with a longer term plan of exiting the market. That’s anecdotal but it does mean we very much can recognize in the reality of actions the survey results below. I can’t see how this doesn’t reduce supply in the PRS and lead to higher rents. These things never happen quickly in property but they are happening.

https://www.allsop.co.uk/insights/the-renters-rights-act-what-do-our-clients-think/

In the past few days it has been confirmed that landlords will have to pay £500 to mount a challenge to a fine from the council.

The fees come from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026. The Order introduces a £200 application fee plus a £300 hearing fee for financial penalty appeals.

Is that really a just and equitable position? If a council issues a fine that they should not have and a landlord challenges it and wins they are still £500 out of pocket. And they can't recover those costs except in the most exceptional circumstances. Is that the basis of a "fair" system? We don't think so.

Tenants have Shelter, Generation Rent, Crisis with millions in funding, political connections and media teams. Housing associations have the National Housing Federation. Developers have the Home Builders Federation. Landlords? A newsletter telling you how to comply with the law designed to punish you. The Renters Rights Act just passed, supply will drop, rents will rise, smaller landlords will exit and the response from existing landlord bodies is guidance documents. Is anyone else done with organisations that help you survive bad law instead of fighting to remove it?

Allsop surveyed 1,000+ landlords last week. Two numbers:

62.5% of single-property landlords are reducing or exiting entirely. For landlords with 26+ properties, that drops to 36.8%.

This isn't regulatory squeeze alone. The economics of small BTL have been deteriorating for nearly two decades.

Before 2007, capital appreciation made everything else secondary. Modest yield, poor documentation, rising costs and all of it was covered by house price growth. Since 2007, real UK house prices have mostly fallen. The subsidy disappeared.

Then the tax structure shifted: mortgage interest fully deductible until 2017, now a 20% credit so landlords are taxed on gross income, not net. Many ended up in the 40% bracket on profit they weren't actually making.

Average rents are up 33%. Net profit is still down.

The ones staying have either incorporated or always ran it as a business. The accidental landlord was a product of a specific era. That era is over.

For renters: homes exiting the PRS tend to be at the affordable end, that helps FTBs. BTR replacement enters almost entirely at the premium end. The supply gap is real, and it falls hardest on renters who can't buy.

There was a case last week which is an important reminder to landlords who use agents. You still need to verify they have done their work.

A landlord was left culpable after a letting agent, that they instructed on a full management term, failed to protect their tenant’s deposit into a government backed scheme.

The landlord assumed that the letting agent had dealt with the deposit correctly and served the tenant with the prescribed information. This omission meant that the unaware landlord was open to penalties and other costs.