Build-to-Rent vs Buy-to-Let: Landlord Responsibility
Leanne Gresswell
Should tenants fear the rise of the corporate landlord? That’s a question recently posed by the Financial Times, leading into a debate around the rising build-to-rent sector.
The article investigates the intentions of large companies operating build-to-rent blocks, in that they’re looking to “shake-up” a sector currently dominated by private landlords. Such companies are claiming to offer what those individual landlords (supposedly) don’t; professionalism, high-level services, and stable pricing.
The FT focuses quite heavily on one company in particular, with an insight into whether they were meeting such standards. The verdict? They weren’t. An anonymous ex-resident complained about poor response times to maintenance that compromised security, and annual rent increases despite an initial promise of ‘stable’ fees.
Buy-to-let landlords have long been subject to bad reputations, giving build-to-rent businesses a foot-in when it comes to tenants ‘changing sides’. Our question is, can we really separate buy-to-let from build-to-rent when it comes down to the core of landlord duties? Does a landlord’s responsibility not remain the same whether they’re letting two flats or 2,000?
The FT reported that rental brand ‘Uncle’ is operating on the basis that they will “treat renters like humans”. As opposed to “second-class citizens”. But, in the eyes of us Property Manager’s, that should always be the case. The property landscape is changing, or perhaps we can say it has changed. Rent costs might be increasing, but the reason more and more people are choosing to rent is that they simply cannot afford to buy. Or, they just don’t want to. Renters, if they ever were, are no longer “second-class citizens”. They’re simply citizens of 2019.
What we’re getting at, is that if there’s a problem, ‘corporate’ probably isn’t it. The problem, on any scale, is landlords who are unable or unwilling to deliver a good quality of service to their tenants. And that’s always been the case. The difference now is that can apply to a landlord in the private rented sector who isn’t willing to respond to repairs, as much as it can to corporate companies who simply aren’t equipped to handle capacity.
Do you ever hear of a good landlord? Probably not. Because their tenants aren’t complaining. They’re living comfortably and confidently in their homes, assured that they’re paying a fair amount in rent and receiving a satisfactory level of service in return. There’s no ‘battle’, the only difference to homeowners being that if they need a plumber, they don’t call one; they call their landlord, managing agent, rental company, whoever’s responsibility it may be, and rest assured that a man with a plunger will be with them in good time.
But the reality is that the rental market is changing significantly and rapidly. We don’t believe that the growth of build-to-rent is intent on phasing out private buy-to-lets; it is an answer to increasing demand for rental properties, in an era where buying isn’t always an option. This is going to cause problems in itself, as private landlords and build-to-rent schemes alike try to keep up. And we can’t blame landlords for (reasonable) rental increases in a world where inflation is a constant. Though of course, you could argue in that case that static fees shouldn’t be promised in the first place. And quite right that argument would be.
Of course, rental schemes of such a large scale are statistically more likely to displease at least one tenant, especially at a time when build-to-rent companies are trialling the likes of AI to deal with property management and maintenance. It’s in these areas that build-to-rent and buy-to-let will experience the divide; private landlords will surely remain more traditional in their approach to property management, whether that’s direct or via a managing agent. While build-to-rents need to find their feet, especially in terms of where technology fits into renting. What needs to be remembered is that a mere few years ago, the build-to-rent sector was, as the FT put it, “virtually non-existent”. And perhaps it still would be if it wasn’t for necessity.
So, should tenants fear the rise of the corporate landlord? Our answer is no. At the end of the day, these schemes are being put in place to respond to demand and give renters more options, while also trying to answer to everything that the modern world (and the modern resident) demands. What should be ‘feared’ (for want of a better word) is any landlord, corporate or otherwise, who doesn’t intend to deliver a quality service.
A Huge Congratulations to Diana Bucataru on her latest academic achievement!
A Huge Congratulations to Diana Bucataru on her latest academic achievement!
Celebrating Emma Keeley’s Success: Achieving the TPI Level 3 Certificate in Residential Property Management
January 2025 edition of the Berkshire Local publication
Everyone here at Cleaver Property Management Ltd is thrilled to continue supporting Transform Housing & Support this year, we’ve donated a variety of Christmas Goodie Bags for Adults, Teens and Children, brightening the festive season for those who rely on their incredible services. This Christmas, they have launched a Transform Tree, a virtual tree where every donation helps spread kindness and warmth. https://ow.ly/cQYi50UfC2y 1. Choose your star or light on the virtual tree. 2. Donate to purchase your chosen star or light. Transform supports over 1,800 people each year, primarily in Surrey, but also in Wokingham, West Sussex and the London Borough of Sutton - Their purpose is to enable homeless and vulnerable people to live independent and fulfilling lives Together, we can make this festive season a little brighter for those who need it most. Every gift counts! Let’s come together to create a season of giving, love and community spirit!
Storm Darragh Highlights the Need for Proactive Property Maintenance
At Cleaver Property Management, we’re incredibly proud to share that our very own Cheryl Wallace is preparing to take on the Brave the Shave challenge for the third time!
We’re Thrilled to Share Some Exciting News!
Kicking Off 2025 at Cleaver Property Management
In the realm of leasehold properties in the UK, the discussion surrounding stay put policies and evacuation policies has gained prominence in recent years. These policies determine how residents should respond in emergency situations, such as fires or other hazards. While both approaches aim to ensure safety, they present distinct perspectives on how to address such incidents. This blog post explores the key features of stay put policies and evacuation policies, shedding light on the UK's approach to maintaining safety within leasehold properties. UK's Approach and Regulations The UK's approach to stay put policies and evacuation policies in leasehold properties is influenced by building regulations and the advice of fire safety experts. Following the Grenfell Tower fire, an Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety was conducted, leading to a series of reforms to enhance fire safety in high-rise residential buildings. These reforms emphasise the importance of comprehensive fire risk assessments, improved building materials, enhanced evacuation plans, and communication systems. Stay Put Policies Stay put policies have been traditionally followed in many leasehold properties in the UK since the 1960s. Under this approach, residents are advised to remain within their units during a fire or other emergencies, unless their unit is directly affected. The rationale behind stay put policies lies in the construction and design of buildings, which are built to contain fires and prevent their spread. The compartmentalisation and fire-resistant materials used in these buildings are expected to provide residents with sufficient protection, allowing them to safely stay in their units until the fire is contained. Evacuation Policies In recent years, there has been a shift in thinking regarding stay put policies, particularly in high-rise buildings. The tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 highlighted the potential risks associated with such policies, leading to a re-evaluation of safety practices. Evacuation policies prioritise the swift and immediate evacuation of residents during emergencies, regardless of the level of fire containment. This approach aims to minimise the potential for casualties and ensure the safety of all occupants. The successful implementation of this approach requires alarm and detection systems that are capable of alerting all residents promptly and enabling a timely evacuation. Conclusion Balancing the need for resident safety and the unique characteristics of leasehold properties is a complex challenge. While stay put policies have traditionally been followed, recent tragedies have highlighted the need for a re-evaluation of these approaches. The UK's approach is evolving, with a greater emphasis on prioritising resident safety through comprehensive fire risk assessments, improved building regulations, and effective evacuation strategies. It is crucial to ensure that the chosen policies in leasehold properties effectively protect residents, providing them with peace of mind and a secure living environment. To find out your building’s fire safety policy, see the fire safety notices by the entrance or contact your managing agent.
