2 weeks ago | 4 comments
Landlords face a second successive Budget tax raid after Chancellor John Healey announced another increase in tax on property income.
Tax rates on property and savings income will increase by a further two percentage points from April 2027, adding to the rise announced by Rachel Reeves last year.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned the measures risk driving landlords out of the market and pushing rents higher for tenants.
The Telegraph reports that the announcement suggests property income tax rates will reach 24% for basic-rate taxpayers, 44% for higher-rate taxpayers and 49% for those paying the additional rate. Full details have yet to be confirmed.
The move puts the taxation of landlords’ income at the centre of a Budget which also includes support for household energy bills.
Delivering his maiden Budget, Mr Healey told MPs: “I am increasing the rates of tax on income from property and savings by a further two percentage points from April 2027.
“With no change to tax on income from dividends and tax on income from employment.”
For landlords, the announcement brings a further squeeze on returns, with the precise impact depending on their circumstances and the detailed provisions.
The OBR issued a scathing warning over the property tax rise, saying it risks shrinking the rental market and driving rents higher.
The OBR said: “These measures collectively risk leading to a steady rise in rents through two effects. First, potential landlords are less likely to enter the market, reducing long-run rental supply, which risks a steady long-term rise in rents if demand outstrips supply – which we think is more likely than not.
“Second, landlords are likely to pass on more of these costs to renters in the long-run through a combination of some current landlords leaving, thereby giving more price setting power to remaining landlords, and greater long-run flexibility to raise rents.
“Such rises in rents would offset at least some of the reduction in the commercial viability to landlords from the measures introduced in recent years.”
Greg Tsuman, managing director for Lettings, Martyn Gerrard said the further rise “may as well criminalise’ renting out a property”.
He said: “Adding a further two per cent tax to property income on top of the previously announced two per cent is a surprising and incomprehensible decision. Last year’s Autumn Budget dealt a severe blow to the sector, but it looks like the Government wants to finish it off.
“The OBR was already warning that the level of tax being imposed on landlords was likely to drive up rents and reduce rental property supply. This is lunacy and I fear that the Government is actively trying to dismantle the PRS. At this point, the government may as well criminalise renting out a property.
“Landlords have endured successive measures against them for years and we’re already seeing an unprecedented exodus from the rental market. There was a desperate need to reassure and provide confidence. Instead, we’ll see the rush to the door intensifying. The property market is already struggling with the oversupply of rental properties being sold and we’re going to see even more downwards pressure on house prices as a result of this.”
Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA), said: “The Chancellor has today made life harder for renters right across the country.
“As the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed, hiking taxes will drive up rents and drive down supply in the rental market when demand is already way ahead of the number of homes available.
“How that fits with a commitment to providing households with more breathing space is anyone’s guess.”
Elsewhere in the Budget, also confirmed that tenants in England will not face Stamp Duty Land Tax on rent under assured tenancies, following the introduction of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026. The exemption is intended to prevent tenants from being inadvertently liable for the tax due to changes in tenancy rules.
The government also pledged a further £430m to tackle rough sleeping, on top of the £442m announced in August, taking total investment to £874m by the end of the current parliament.
The Chancellor also announced the Your First Home scheme, which aims to help 70,000 first-time buyers onto the property ladder and save them hundreds of pounds a month.
Eligible buyers will be able to purchase a home with a deposit of at least 2.5%, a repayment mortgage from a participating lender and a government equity loan worth 20% of the purchase price, interest-free for the first five years.
The Budget also includes a further £1.5bn for social and affordable housing, taking total capital investment over the next decade to more than £40bn.
Smaller housing developments on brownfield land will also be exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain requirements, in a move intended to make building cheaper and simpler.
However, the Chancellor made no mention of Local Housing Allowance meaning it remains frozen.
On the rise of property tax rise, Andrew Lloyd, managing director at property data firm, Search Acumen, said: “Landlords will feel an underhand blow from the Chancellor today. Raising tax rates on income from property by a further two percentage points from April 2027 is a concern for small and accidental landlords whose margins have already been eroded this year, and we will undoubtedly see this impact in supply and rents over the next year.
“Conversely, the zero-rate on land sold to social housing providers announced will help incentivise the build and supply of council homes, a much-needed win for the struggling sector.”
Tony Hall, head of business development at Saffron for Intermediaries, said: “Last year’s increase has yet to take effect, and the Chancellor has already doubled it. Raising property income tax rates to 24%, 44% and 49% from April 2027 adds yet more pressure on landlords already navigating rising costs and substantial regulatory change.
“The government describes this as fair and proportionate, but landlords will judge it against the cost of providing a home. Maintenance, repairs, safety checks and property improvements all need funding. Taking more of the income leaves less available to reinvest.
“Many landlords are already rethinking how they operate, whether through limited companies, changes to their portfolios or investment in HMOs and multi-unit blocks. These decisions require careful advice and long-term planning. Repeated tax increases make that planning harder and risk discouraging further investment.
“If the government wants more good-quality homes to rent, it needs to give landlords reasons to provide them. Squeezing rental investment further risks leaving tenants with fewer choices and higher costs.”
Rob Stanton, sales and distribution director at Landbay, said: “Having already announced a 2% increase in income tax on property income in last year’s Budget, the Government has now doubled that increase to 4%, which will take the basic rate to 24%, the higher rate to 44% and the additional rate to 49% from April 2027.
“This applies to landlords who hold their rental properties in their personal names across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than those who own through limited companies, and clearly represents a significant additional tax burden at a time when landlords are already managing higher mortgage costs, growing regulatory responsibilities and the expense of maintaining their properties.
“This is unlikely to encourage further investment in the private rental sector, particularly among landlords already questioning whether individual properties remain financially viable.
He added: “Our latest landlord survey, showed that almost 80% of landlords were concerned about further tax changes ahead of the Budget, and today’s announcement suggests those concerns were well founded.
“The consequences of this decision are unlikely to be felt by landlords alone, because when the costs of providing rental housing increase, there is a real likelihood that some of those costs will eventually be passed on to tenants through higher rents.
“Equally concerning is the potential impact on rental housing supply, with further taxation likely to make some landlords reconsider purchasing additional properties, while others may decide to sell existing investments. At a time when we need to encourage investment and ensure there are sufficient rental homes to meet demand, measures which risk reducing supply could ultimately make life even more difficult for tenants, particularly if fewer available properties place additional upward pressure on rents.”
Steve Cox, chief commercial officer at Fleet Mortgages, said: “The further increase in property income tax is likely to make many landlords reconsider how they hold their rental properties, particularly those with larger portfolios who may already be paying higher rates of income tax.
“Our latest Q3 Rental Barometer showed that 71% of buy-to-let mortgage applications in Q3 were made through limited companies, compared to 78% in the previous quarter, suggesting there had been some movement back towards individual borrowing.
“However, with property income tax rates now set to rise even further than previously announced, we would not be surprised to see more landlords considering whether they should continue to hold their properties in their individual names or explore instead the potential benefits of limited company ownership.”
Jeremy Leaf, north London estate agent and a former RICS residential chairman, said: “Sadly, there was nothing to encourage new landlords into the buy-to-let sector or anything to persuade others to stay invested. There is an urgent need to stem the flow of those leaving the sector or rents will keep rising and standards will keep declining.
“Hopefully, activity at the very least won’t be any worse than before, while those sitting on the fence will be persuaded to come down and get on with their moves.”
Marc von Grundherr, the director of lettings and estate agency Benham and Reeves, said: “Landlords have been kicked while they’re down once again, with the Chancellor delivering yet another blow to buy to let profitability.
“The private rented sector is already contending with higher operating costs, mounting regulatory obligations, and the financial pressures of maintaining rental homes, so a further increase in property income tax is the last thing landlords need.
“The Government cannot continue to squeeze landlords financially while expecting them to provide the homes the nation so desperately needs.
“If investment in the sector becomes increasingly unattractive, more landlords will inevitably reconsider their position, further reducing rental stock and placing additional upward pressure on rents for tenants.”
Roma Sharma, the managing director of property management specialists Rushbrook, said: “With the Government’s sustained campaign against landlords, a hit to buy to let profitability has become a frequent and almost expected feature of the Autumn Budget.
“Today’s further increase in property income tax is another blow to a sector already grappling with rising operating costs, tighter regulation, and growing financial pressures.
“The concern is that landlords can only absorb so much before difficult decisions have to be made. Whether that’s delaying essential property improvements, increasing rents where possible, or exiting the market altogether, the consequences will ultimately be felt by tenants who are already struggling with limited choice and affordability.”
186 comments on this article
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Next Article
Property experts slam Budget tax raid on landlords
2 weeks ago | 4 comments
2 weeks ago | 1 comments
3 weeks ago | 2 comments
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 361
11:30 AM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 09/11/2026 – 11:01
If the Greens abolished the RRA, scrapped S24 and gave all landlord buyers a SDLT holiday it wouldn’t be any more of a deviation from the expected than Osborne’s 2015 assault on unincorporated landlords.
Kemi needs to throw him (and Gove) under the bus with a mea culpa on how wrong the Tories were on the PRS to stand a chance with the landlord (and tenants who are experiencing the fallout from those policies and Labour’s subsequent gold plating) vote in 2029.
Member Since January 2024 - Comments: 463
11:42 AM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 09/11/2026 – 11:30
And let’s also not forget that the Tories instigated the drive for MTD for income tax (at a cost of a mere £1.03 billion to the taxpayer, plus the cost of admin time, potential professional fees and software charges for every taxpayer affected).
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2685
12:12 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 09/11/2026 – 11:30
I think this is true up to a point. I never did think that George Osborne’s policy of stopping landlords from offsetting their finance costs against rents was a good one. At the time though there was a bit of spin around about enabling the kids of middle-income families to be able to get on the housing market by buying a “fixer-upper” and avoiding another property boom-and-bust as we saw in the run up to the 2008 crash. But this was always b******t because most kids from middle-income families don’t have the skills, the time, or the money to do-up a “fixer-upper”; and we need a boom in energy-efficient housing without a bust, i.e. with well thought through policies to encourage investment in housing. I suspect those stories were just spin to encourage voters to vote conservative in the same way that labour and the greens spin their anti-landlord lies whilst compromising the supply of housing and driving up rents.
But politics is about holding the centre ground and if Kemi or any other party that understands economics (from what we’ve seen now from John Healey that’s clearly not labour) and sustainability (which is also about economics) recognises that it needs to hold the centre ground were also to publicly acknowledge that the economic environment is not the same one in which George Osborne introduced his 2015 changes then they could still bring about positive change. The impact of the recent tax increases on rental income for example would not have the same negative impact on the market and upon tenants if landlords were able to offset their finance costs against rents. John Healey could have reversed this policy and blamed this on the conservatives. Even Kemi could reverse it on the basis that it isn’t the same market as a decade ago; in fact, because the public finances are so dire she could actually make a good case for changing it now. The Greens went loony-left under Zak Polanski, but even if the Green Party kicked Zak into touch and made a case for properties in EPC band C and above to be able to offset their finance costs against rents (with sensible changes to the EPC system) then the Greens could become once again at least an effective pressure group.
The centre-ground is wide open for any party that wants to take it if they have sensible policies and politicians that can communicate effectively.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 543 - Articles: 1
12:46 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 08/11/2026 – 15:05
Thanks Mick
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 361
1:12 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 09/11/2026 – 12:12
Osborne was guilty of blatant outright lying. He likened the landlord interest offset (which as we all know could only be set against rental income, not earnings from employment etc) to the long withdrawn MIRAS that owner occupiers used to enjoy but without any tax charge for the ‘imputed’ rental value of their home which would at least have made it stand up to scrutiny. He was on record as saying home owners were taxed more than landlords. Forget who but he was called out by a prominent economist as “simply wrong”.
The actual unfairness at the time was the ease which landlords could continually re-mortgage to provide equity for further leveraged purchases. Whilst many who could comfortably afford rent were denied mortgages to buy landlords could obtain mortgages just on the strength of the rental income a purchase would produce.
He actually mitigated this with his Mortgage Market Review which restricted the number of properties a landlord could acquire without income sources other than rent. And of course his SDLT premium of 3% was a factor in giving FTBs an advantage if competing with a landlord buyer for a property.
S24 was just playing to the gallery and an underhand tax grab when he already had measures in place to level the playing field, not forgetting that Help to Buy was in full swing for FTBs at the time.
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 361
1:22 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 09/11/2026 – 13:12
* It was Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies who called out Osborne as “plain wrong” on his claim landlords were taxed less than owner occupiers.
Makes anything Reeves did or said passably competent in comparison..
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 711
1:34 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 09/11/2026 – 13:12
Osborne forgot to say or admit that letting property is a business and landlords are working people (Labour denies) and like all other businesses their loans should be fully recoverable. Also forgets to mention owner/occupiers don’t pay capital gains on profits.
Member Since October 2021 - Comments: 46
1:48 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 09/11/2026 – 13:34
…also forgot to mention that owner/occupiers don’t require Gas Safe Certificates, Eicr Epc etc etc
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 711
2:17 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 09/11/2026 – 12:12
Currently at the top of what the Greens stand for is taxing wealth rather than work and for capital gains to be taxed like income. Let’ s see if this changes but I doubt it
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2685
2:35 PM, 9th November 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 09/11/2026 – 13:12
The truth is that the unfairness that was there at the time is still there today because limited companies are not penalised in this way. Small landlords, the majority who were probably holding rents down are penalised; large landlords aren’t penalised, can grow their portfolios and are probably going to be more likely to put rents up.