Rapid evidence
assessment of
the research
literature on the
buy-to-let housing
market sector
Rapid evidence
assessment of
the research
literature on the
buy-to-let housing
market sector
February 2008
Priestley House
12-26 Albert Street
Birmingham
B4 7UD
United Kingdom
T 0121 616 3600
F 0121 616 3699
www.ecotec.com
ECOTEC is an international provider of research, consulting and management services.
Our aim is to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. For more than twenty years
we have worked with clients in the public, private and not for profit sectors. Our housing research
and consultancy team specialises on housing research and intelligence, housing policy analysis,
supporting regional and sub-regional planning and housing market renewal.
5
Contents
Executive summary 7
Characteristics of investors and investment motives 7
Housing quality and voids 8
Investors and the wider housing market 8
Future prospects 9
Conclusions 9
1. Introduction 11
1.1 A growing sector 11
1.2 Research questions 13
1.3 Methodology: the rapid evidence assessment 14
1.4 Quantity and strength of evidence 15
2. Characteristics of investors and investment motives 19
2.1 Investors seeking a financial return 19
2.2 Amateurs investing for retirement 20
2.3 Speculative investors in new-build 22
2.4 Professional landlords living on rental income 26
2.5 Regional variation found 27
2.6 Summary of key findings 28
3. Housing quality and voids 29
3.1 Improvement to property conditions 29
3.2 Consistent level of voids 31
3.3 Summary of key evidence 32
4. Investors and the wider housing market 33
4.1 Financing purchases with BTL mortgages 33
4.2 Some effect on property prices 34
4.3 Competition with first-time buyers? 35
4.4 Summary of key findings 37
5. Future prospects 38
5.1 Buoyant investment for the medium to long term 38
5.2 Interest rates and personal finance affect landlord behaviour 39
5.3 Importance of demand for private renting 40
5.4 Summary of key findings 40
6
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
6. Conclusions 42
6.1 The growth of BTL 42
6.2 Stability and risks for amateur investors 42
6.3 Speculators can spur and unsettle the market 42
6.4 Professional landlords ride the storm 43
6.5 Cyclical behaviour from landlords 43
6.6 Property conditions are improving 43
6.7 The housing market is complex 43
6.8 Future research is needed 44
7. Bibliography 46
Annex 1: Search strategy 50
Search strategy 50
Annex 2: Review template 51
Buy-to-let literature review template 51
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Number of dwelling in the private rental sector (thousands) 11
Figure 1.2 Private sector rental properties with and without a buy-to-let mortgage 12
Figure 2.1 Yields on housing, gilts and equities 19
Figure 2.2 Distribution of private rented stock by size of landlord’s portfolio 21
Figure 2.3 Location of private non-owner occupiers in Merseyside sample 25
Figure 3.1 Property condition and returns for landlords 31
List of tables
Table 2.1 Who buys new homes in London? 23
Table 3.1 Rate of unfitness by tenure in England, 1991 to 2001 (% of households) 29
Table 3.2 Privately renting households living in non-decent housing in England 29
7
Executive summary
This report reviews evidence on the buy-to-let (BTL) market on behalf of the National Housing
and Planning Advice Unit. It focuses on the supply side of the private rented market, particularly
looking at investor characteristics and their motives for investing. It also considers the interplay
between BTL, house prices and first-time buyers.
We have used a rapid evidence assessment to review literature on the BTL market. This is a
methodology for assessing evidence, particularly published literature, to guide public policy
research and evaluation. It aims to find out what is already known in a quick and efficient but
critical way.
Using a broad definition of BTL – buying property with the intention of letting out – we have
generated a wider pool of evidence. We have found most evidence on the particular
characteristics of investors or the housing markets they invest in and the future prospects for the
sector. Evidence has been most lacking around the supply and quality of BTL housing stock,
vacancy rates and international evidence.
The private rented sector is today bigger in size and proportion of the housing market than in the
late-1980s, currently housing some 2.5 million households and representing 12% of all stock.
BTL mortgages make up just over a quarter of the whole PRS stock, although some of this
investment represents remortgages rather than additional purchases.
Characteristics of investors and investment motives
The overriding motive for private landlords is to receive a financial return, with returns in residential
property outperforming other forms of investment in recent times. Yet landlords have different
motives for investing. The biggest group of BTL investors are small-scale and amateur, investing
for retirement. These are most likely to expect to continue letting property over the medium- to
long-term.
Speculative investors form a second group, though much smaller in size. They are seeking short-
term gain through capital growth and are concentrated in new-build apartments. There is also
overlap between this group and the ‘buy-to-leave’ phenomenon, with properties bought as an
investment but with no intention of letting out. A concern for both groups is that there appears to
be a saturation of the PRS in some markets which could lead to a fall in prices. Another worry is
that such investment has encouraged developers to build small apartments, although there may
not be sufficient household demand for such units.
The third key group of landlord is those who own large portfolios. These investors are more
focussed on generating a positive cash flow from rental income and less preoccupied with short-
term capital growth. Understandably, this group of investors is also more professional and
knowledgeable about housing tax and finance.
8
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
Housing quality and voids
The private rented sector has consistently held the highest level of unfitness among all tenures,
although fitness appears to have increased dramatically over the decade. Improvement to
property condition appears to happen more with new stock entering the market than by the active
modification by landlords.
Some BTL investors are happy to hold on to poor-quality stock and obtain high rental yield,
though have little interest in long-term capital growth. These landlords have been called ‘rent
maximisers’, though may face higher voids. Another group of landlords often buys good-quality
stock and invest to maintain this high standard or buys poor quality stock but improves it. These
investors will receive better capital growth but reduced net rental yield, because of higher
management and maintenance costs.
Evidence on vacancy periods and void rates is patchy but generally consistent. Some 6%–7% of
landlords’ properties appear to be vacant at any one time, and the duration of voids is about one
month per year. These figures are probably currently for BTL investors, but there would be a
public policy concern if demand dropped or the BTL market became saturated with supply.
Investors and the wider housing market
The lending industry and some academics view BTL mortgages as a positive contribution to how
investors operate. Some state that gearing (that is the relationship between invested equity and
debt) is low in the PRS, and see much potential for investors to improve their returns if they
borrower further. For the lending industry, BTL borrowers are currently proving to be a safer bet
than others, as BTL borrowers have lower levels of arrears.
Few of the studies provide empirical evidence on a direct relationship between BTL investment
and house prices, and none has shown that BTL alone has increased prices. Instead, a number
of studies conclude that the housing market is more complex, with no single element precipitating
rapid house growth. There is stronger evidence that private landlords are attracted to low value
properties, therefore making an association between BTL and property prices.
There is also concern that investors have priced out first-time buyers. Yet the evidence is
ambiguous. A number of studies state that rather than pricing out first-time buyers, BTL is
providing a demand-led alternative at a time when attitudes to homeownership have changed.
Other studies point to a different interplay between BTL investment and first-time buyers.
Alternative reasons for the rise in property prices include weak housing supply, new demand as a
result of in-migration, low rates of property transactions, rising incomes at a time of low interest
rates and the deregulation of mortgage markets. The strongest case for BTL investors pricing out
potential owner occupiers is found in the competition for small new-build apartments and city
centre or waterside developments. However, more rigorous research is required.
9
Executive summary
Future prospects
Most studies found that the majority of landlords regarded their investments as medium-to-long-
term and that landlords plan to maintain the size of their portfolio. But more landlords, particularly
BTL borrowers, intend to buy properties than sell them, showing confidence in the market.
One in-depth survey of BTL borrowers found that stable or low interest rates, stable or rising
house prices and very good rental yields were seen as primary reasons for increasing one’s
investment portfolio; rising interest rates and insufficient rental income to cover mortgage
payments were identified as primary reasons for decreasing holdings. This is used to show that
landlords’ behaviour is cyclical rather than counter-cyclical.
A number of studies conclude that the risks are greatest for new investors. These are most likely
to be inexperienced in the letting process, have higher financial risks and experience slower
capital growth. If these landlords have to sell up, this would be unsettling if they are concentrated
in particular property ‘hot-spots’ and would be painful for these investors.
There is considerable uncertainty over the likely future demand for private renting. But on balance,
it appears that demand will increase because of affordability problems in owner occupation and
quite large changes to the population structure from new migrants. So long as supply has not
become saturated, BTL will have a place; but where an over-supply has already occurred, a short-
term contraction may take place.
Conclusions
Our key conclusions are:
• The PRS is today bigger in both number and as a share of all households than its lowest
point in the late-1980s, and is growing rapidly.
• But there are different motivations for buying and letting property, mostly driven by a
desire for a financial return. The biggest group of investors are small-scale and amateur
landlords, seeking a return for their retirement. A small proportion of BTL investors have made
speculative investments for short-term capital growth. A third group of BTL investors is
professional landlords living on rental income.
• Landlord behaviour appears to be cyclical rather than counter-cyclical. However,
landlords’ predicted behaviour and their actual behaviour might not be the same, and that
new entrants may not behave as their predecessors did.
• House prices are driven by a complex interplay of factors. BTL investment will be one of
these but not the sole or even necessarily the major factor. The evidence shows the strongest
direct relationship between BTL and new-build apartments. The low price of old terraced
stock in housing market renewal areas has been an incentive for BTL investment.
• The most rapidly changing part of the English housing market is the part we currently know
least about.
10
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
We suggest that future research on BTL should therefore look at:
• the extent to which BTL investment has ‘priced out’ first-time buyers, and how this interacts
with the local housing market;
• the motivation to invest in property maintenance by newer landlords and their use of
managing agents;
• demand for private renting among new groups, particularly A8 migrants;
• geographical gaps, particularly in cities with large student populations and in coastal areas,
where private renting is higher;
• local authority-level systems to monitor developments and trends in the PRS, to ensure that
they understand the changing market – these should also use a common methodology to
compare across regions; and
• updating old evidence.
11
1. Introduction
This report reviews evidence on the buy-to-let (BTL) market on behalf of the National
Housing and Planning Advice Unit. It has been carried out by ECOTEC with support from
Professor Ian Cole at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield
Hallam University. This section focuses on the context of BTL, the methodology we have
used, and the strength of evidence reviewed.
Throughout this project we have used a broad definition of BTL: buying property with the
intention of letting it out, not just with a BTL mortgage. This takes into account properties
that have been bought outright and those bought using other means (eg mortgages on
other properties, business loans). A key concern, though, is whether new investment
(often with BTL mortgages) is affecting the established market, which is considered in this
report. Where we consider investment with BTL mortgages (the narrow definition), we talk
about ‘BTL borrowers’ or ‘BTL mortgages’.
1.1 A growing sector
The size of the private rented sector (PRS) at large was in steady decline throughout
most of the twentieth century. Its lowest point in England was in the late-1980s, when the
sector dropped to just over 2 million properties, representing just 10% of all stock
(Thomas, 2006b). But there has been clear growth since then. Today the sector is bigger
in size and proportion of the housing market (Figure 1.1), housing some 2.5 million
households and representing 12% of all stock (CLG, 2007). Although the tenure is still
dwarfed by owner occupation (accounting for around 70% of stock), the absolute and
relative increase in properties is significant.
Figure 1.1 Number of dwelling in the private rental sector (thousands)
Source: Thomas (2006b) using ODPM figures
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
Number
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
12
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
The development of the sector has not taken place evenly across the country as some
local markets have experienced higher levels of PRS growth than others. For example,
ECOTEC (2007) estimated the PRS in the NewHeartlands housing market renewal
pathfinder area to have grown from 19% to 26% of stock in the five years to 2006. This is
a very steep rise and demonstrates the very quick change in property ownership, coupled
with new supply, in some neighbourhoods. Other local level studies have underlined this.
For example, Gibb and Nygaard (2005) estimated that the entire PRS had grown in
Glasgow from under 7.7% to 9%–10% in the three years to 2004. Unsworth (2007) shows
the scale of this potential growth, with some 19,000 units in the planning pipeline in
Leeds. Even if all these do not come to fruition, it will take some time to stem the flow.
1.1.1 BTL mortgage market is also increasing
BTL mortgages were first introduced by the Association of Residential Letting Agents
(ARLA) in 1996, as a means of allowing investors to borrow specifically to invest in
residential property. The home loans were first offered by a select panel of providers but
today have grown to form an important segment of the mortgage lending market.
Figure 1.2 shows recent evidence from the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), with BTL
mortgages making up just over a quarter of the whole PRS stock. The industry is quick to
boast the huge numbers involved. For example, Thomas (2006b) stresses that the BTL
(mortgage) part of the wider PRS has grown from 1% to 20% in just six years. He goes on
to say: “By mid-2006, there were over 750,000 buy-to-let loans outstanding with a total
value of £84 billion.” (Thomas, 2006b, p1; echoed in Ball, 2004, 2006).
Figure 1.2 Private sector rental properties with and without a buy-to-let mortgage
Source: CML (2007)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Thousands
Private rental without BTL mortgage Private rental with BTL mortgage
13
1. Introduction
The growing importance of BTL mortgages is clear. But properties bought with such
mortgages are not all new stock to the sector. Lenders say that a large share of BTL loans
are remortgages of existing investment properties. Data for 2004 states that 37% of BTL
mortgages in that year were remortgages (Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005). As the take-up
of BTL mortgages is often – but wrongly – assumed to indicate new PRS stock, this
creates a false impression. The trend is therefore not as straightforward as often assumed.
1.2 Research questions
The BTL market has clearly grown in importance within the PRS at large. It has prompted
much media attention, especially as it is believed by some to have had an adverse effect
on the wider housing market, and has provoked intense political and policy interests as a
result. To investigate these concerns surrounding BTL the NHPAU set nine research
questions to be answered by this project:
1 To what extent (if any) has BTL increased house prices?
2 What specific factors attract buy-to-let investment into a particular local housing
market and to certain types of property, and what are the characteristics of investors?
3 Has property speculation in BTL priced out prospective first-time buyers?
4 What is the impact of BTL on private rental provision?
5 Has there been any improvement in the supply and quality of the housing stock as a
result of BTL?
6 What are the vacancy rates of BTL properties?
7 Is there any international evidence that can be drawn upon?
8 What are the future prospects for the BTL sector?
9 Are there any gaps in the evidence base in relation to the above questions?
The focus of this project has been on the supply side of the housing market, with little
evidence specifically reviewed on demand for private renting. Although the sector would
not function without both supply and demand, the latter has not been the impetus for this
project and so is not covered in any depth in this report. Because the sector changes so
rapidly, some phenomena are too recent to be captured in already published research
evidence. An example is investment clubs, which are used to pool capital to buy
properties to let. Such aspects of the market are understandably beyond the scope of a
rapid evidence assessment, though no doubt are having an increasing influence on the
market.
14
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
1.3 Methodology: the rapid evidence assessment
1.3.1 Rapid evidence assessment explained
We have used a rapid evidence assessment to review literature on the BTL market. This is
a methodology for assessing evidence, particularly published literature, to guide public
policy research and evaluation. It aims to find out what is already known in a quick and
efficient but critical way. The approach is more critical than a literature review and closer to
a systematic review.
The government’s Magenta Book (Davies, 2003) explains the rapid evidence assessment.
In systematic reviews, all evidence on a subject (eg effects of pharmaceutical drugs) is
brought together to find consistencies and explain variation between studies. Unlike other
types of research synthesis, systematic reviews are more methodical and rigorous in the
way they search existing evidence, with explicit and transparent criteria for appraising
evidence and explicit ways of comparing different studies. This way of synthesising
evidence is clearly more critical than a standard literature review.
A rapid evidence assessment is one step back from a full systematic review, as it seeks to
critically appraise the evidence but quickly. It therefore relies on evidence that is readily
available, identified by keyword searches of electronic databases and websites; hand
searches of journals and reviewing ‘grey’ literature (unpublished studies or work in
progress) are not necessary. The main purpose is to establish what is already known to
determine if any further, detailed research is needed. However, the critical manner of
appraising evidence is still evident and a transparent approach remains important.
1.3.2 Our approach
Our approach to the rapid evidence assessment has therefore stressed that the search
criteria and process are transparent (Annex 1 contains further details of our search
strategy), that evidence has been appraised in a clear and open way (Annex 2 contains
our review template) and that gaps in the evidence have been identified.
For the assessment we have gathered literature from a variety of sources, including:
central, regional and local government; academic sources; industry representatives; and
private consultancies. We have gone beyond the normal scope of a rapid evidence
assessment by contacting all nine regional assemblies (and the Greater London
Assembly). We are grateful for their help in providing the most recently published literature
on BTL, which has offered some wider stakeholder consultation and allowed us to use the
most up-to-date evidence.
We have appraised all literature using a standard template, probing the methodologies
used in the studies, their limitations and bias. Putting all these factors together, we graded
each item of literature as low, medium or high quality for the particular research question.
This review has been summarised in each mini report on the six research questions that
we have answered separately. The limitations of literature mainly referred to the
transparency of the methodology, the use of primary evidence and sample sizes (though a
15
1. Introduction
full list is included in Annex 2). Rather than exclude literature, we have included anything
that matched the primary research questions or secondary issues (outlined in Annex 1).
Where a study had only limited relevance, we have included it in the review but usually
given it a low or medium grade.
1.4 Quantity and strength of evidence
For a rapid evidence assessment to go beyond a traditional literature review it must
assess the quality and strength of evidence. Overall there has been only limited evidence
looking at the BTL market in its narrow sense, that of purchasing property with a BTL
mortgage. But this project has used a broader definition: buying property with the
intention of letting out. This wider definition has generated a wider pool of evidence, with
studies looking at the PRS more broadly. Some of the evidence we have reviewed has
been generic (eg Ball, 2004, 2006; ODPM, 2003, 2006), while other studies have had a
much narrower remit (eg Crook, 2002) or somewhat limited relevance to this project (eg
Holmans, 2005).
1.4.1 Some research topics covered well
In our review, we have found most evidence on the particular characteristics of investors
or the housing markets they invest in (research question 2) and the future prospects for
the sector (Q8). This is mainly due to three reasons. First, a large share of the evidence
has been commissioned by public or publicly accountable agencies trying to plan and
operate in local housing markets. Second, much of the work has been empirical to
understand investors in the market, either personal characteristics (eg age, location) or
property characteristics (eg type of dwelling, portfolio size). Third, the interest in the future
prospects of the sector is driven by a concern for the wider housing market and an
interest in how public policy can anticipate the direction of development in order to
respond effectively to it.
We have found less evidence looking at the impact of BTL on house prices (Q1), first-time
buyers (Q3) and private rental provision (Q4). The wider research material on house prices
and first-time buyers has been more interested in the owner occupier market (eg
Holmans, 2005; Wilcox, 2005, 2006). We have found a lack of academic investigation into
the relationship between the owner-occupier market and the investment market. Equally,
evidence on private rental provision has been included in some of the studies we have
reviewed but often in conjunction with other research aims.
Evidence has been most lacking around the supply and quality of BTL housing stock (Q5),
vacancy rates (Q6) and international evidence (Q7). Although the quality of PRS stock has
consistently been identified as poorer than in other tenures, the means of improving this
stock are less well understood. There has been much greater policy momentum to bring
social rented housing up to the decency standard, so there has been more emphasis and
research on this issue. Vacancy rates, meanwhile, are sometimes alluded to in broader
research findings but they do not feature as the subject of stand-alone studies. Lastly,
international evidence on housing issues tends to be provided by academic literature and
although there is some evidence on BTL available, this is very limited (eg Montezuma,
16
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
2006; Mandicˇ, 2000). The inherent difficulties of developing a comparative understanding
of housing markets, given their unique characteristics and histories have limited the
amount of such evidence. It is therefore highly problematic to offer superficial comparisons
between the English housing market and markets in other countries.
1.4.2 Varied affiliation to the subject
When looking at the evidence reviewed by affiliation to the subject, there are five distinct
groups. They are described here in order of amount of evidence produced:
• Academic literature: A large share of the evidence has be commissioned by the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation or published in academic journals and books. Such
studies have almost all had strong and transparent methodologies and generally
looked at the PRS nationally. Academics have also worked on research commissioned
by other organisations outlined below.
• Local, sub-regional and regional level agencies: The second most common type
of evidence has been commissioned by local authorities and sub-regional or regional
bodies. These have been produced by private consultancies as well as academics.
They have been particularly common in towns and cities working on housing market
renewal, in South East England (including London) and where there are large student
populations. Much evidence in this group has also been of high quality, though some
studies have relied on relatively small samples and therefore contained high margins of
error.
• The lending and letting industries: There have been a few studies by and on behalf
of the lending and letting industries, particularly for the CML and ARLA. These have
often drawn on industry data that would otherwise not be published and are often
up-to-date, so a valuable contribution to the literature. They are weak, however, by
reporting much opinion; they are closer to promotional material than solid and
transparent research evidence.
• Other national level organisations: Some research has been commissioned by
other organisations with a particular interest in BTL. The best example is Kemp (2004),
commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Housing, which provides one of the most
in-depth understandings of the PRS, though no primary evidence is included. Another
example is Ball (2004), commissioned by the Social Market Foundation to stimulate
discussion on the performance of markets and the social framework. A third is Birch
(2007), an article written for Roof, the magazine of housing rights charity Shelter. The
article provides new evidence on housing affordability but is selective in presenting data.
• Central government: Just a few of the studies reviewed have been commissioned
directly by central government. The two national surveys of private landlords (ODPM,
2003, 2006) are strong empirical datasets and provide a good overview of the broad
BTL market. Surprisingly few other studies (before this project by the NHPAU) have
been commissioned by central government that look in particular at BTL, although the
evaluation of the housing benefit reforms (eg DWP, 2005, 2006) has provided some
useful comparative evidence along the way.
17
1.4.3 Mostly national or local authority geographic scopes
Those commissioning work have generally determined the geographic scope of studies.
This has resulted in a fair amount of evidence at national level but a patchwork of studies
at a lower spatial level.
The two surveys of private landlords carried out alongside the English House Condition
Surveys (ODPM, 2003, 2006) are good examples of national level studies providing much
empirical data on a range of investor and property issues. Their shared limitation is that
even such large samples are too small to break down to regional or local authority level.
Both reports acknowledge this drawback, though, and do not attempt to break down the
samples spatially.
Most of the studies carried out by academics are also at a national level. This is often
because they have been commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or bodies
with a national interest (eg ARLA, CML, Social Market Foundation). The benefit of such
studies is their scale and broad remit in terms of understanding the working of the housing
market at large. Their weakness is a lack of detailed understanding of particular housing
markets or sub-markets.
This drawback is allayed by studies that have considered the BTL and the PRS at a
regional or sub-regional level. These include ECOTEC (2007), Green et al (2007), Hickman
et al (2007), London Development Research Ltd (2006), Pendle Borough Council (2007)
and Savills Research (2007). The advantage of such studies is being able to concentrate
on links and interactions between the BTL and the rest of the PRS, and between different
tenures, on more localised phenomena and providing much larger samples at a local level.
For example, Green et al include a survey of 576 landlords, almost the same sample size
as one of the national surveys (ODPM, 2003). These studies are particularly useful for
shaping regional policy making.
We have also found some evidence on BTL collected at a local authority level. In particular
these are: CSR Partnership (2004), CRESR (2007), ECOTEC and SURF (2006), Gibb and
Nygaard (2005), Knight Frank Residential Research (2007) and Unsworth (2007). These
have the added benefit of understanding change at an even smaller level, sometimes
down to parts of towns or cities (eg west Glasgow) and even down to neighbourhood
level (eg Nottingham’s Lace Market area). However, some of these studies are weakened
by relying on small samples (eg 24 landlords in Glasgow and 14 agents and developers in
Nottingham).
At an even more localised level, when looking specifically at neighbourhoods, we have found
much less evidence. Although there will undoubtedly be less research at this level, some
studies will exist that have been beyond the scope of our search strategy. Yet property
investors are often attracted to particular streets or neighbourhoods, not just towns or cities,
so such localised research is important. The Leeds Beeston Hill case study in Hickman et al
(2007) is an exception in the literature, although it was purposely included in their research
as a distinct case study and not just studied because of a local public policy concern.
1. Introduction
18
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
1.4.4 Methodologies focused on housing market analysis
Many types of methodologies have been used in the studies we have reviewed. Some
research has relied exclusively on empirical data collected from surveys (eg ODPM, 2003,
2006). Most projects, though, have combined methods for collecting data, often using
qualitative and quantitative approaches (eg ECOTEC, 2007; Green et al, 2007; Hickman et
al, 2007). Most techniques have appeared adequate for collection and analysis, although
some studies have used seemingly inappropriate methods (eg collecting mainly statistical
evidence using interviews rather than paper questionnaires in Gibb and Nygaard, 2005) or
relied on weak statistical associations (eg Crook, 2002, although these were
acknowledged).
We have also included a few studies that have exclusively used secondary evidence (Ball,
2004; Kemp, 2004). Although these would not normally be included in rapid evidence
assessments, we have done so because they have been large-scale and offered depth to
the topics covered. We have, however, been cautious not to double-count such evidence
when reviewing the primary sources, too.
By research discipline, most evidence comes from the applied and eclectic ‘housing
studies’ sector, with a direct interest in housing market analysis. In contrast, we have
reviewed less evidence from an overtly economistic perspective, although some studies
have been included (eg Hughes, 1999; Meen, 2006; Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005; but
also Ball, 2004, 2006).
1.4.5 Some very new literature, but some dated
A rapid evidence assessment benefits from using a methodical search strategy. Because
we contacted regional and local agencies in our search we have been able to review the
newest evidence available, some even before publication. This means that our overall
review has included the most up-to-date evidence available as well as solid studies from
over the last 10 years.
We do suggest some caution, though, when looking at the date of studies. Housing
markets change all the time; property prices and housing supply both fluctuate and public
policy instruments are continually implemented and refined. The BTL market can change
more quickly, as witnessed by the sudden rise in investors in housing market renewal
areas. This means that evidence published as recently as 2002 can be considered out of
date in some areas, and offer little insight into contemporary issues and pressures in those
local housing markets, especially in the BTL sector.
19
2. Characteristics of investors
and investment motives
We have found most evidence on the characteristics of investors and their investment
motives. This section looks at these issues, first their overriding motives and then looking
at three particular investor types.
2.1 Investors seeking a financial return
Most studies point to the fact that many individuals have decided to become landlords.
But what are their motives for doing so? There are many reasons people invest in
property. The overriding motive for private landlords is to receive a financial return, either
through rental income, capital gain or both. This financial motive is also increasing, up
from 59% in 1994 and 1998 to 68% in the 2001 national survey (ODPM, 2003) to 72%
among private individual landlords in the 2003 survey (ODPM, 2006).
BTL mortgages have given investors the means to borrow easily and at competitive rates.
But the BTL phenomenon has done more by making it more socially acceptable to invest
in property (Ball, 2004) or even socially desirable (ECOTEC and SURF, 2006). At a
financial level, investment in rental property has also been attractive, especially when
compared with other forms of investment. The index constructed by Rhodes and Kemp
(2002) found total returns for residential property investors at almost 14% in 2000. Yet
this was higher than the total return of 10% for all types of commercial property, minus
6% for equities, 9% for gilts and 6% for cash (Rhodes and Kemp, 2002, Table 4.1).
Data from the CML reinforces the strong return from property investment when compared
with gilts and equities (Figure 2.1). This shows how net rental yield has been
outperforming UK share dividend yield since 1992 and surpassed the 30-year gilt yield in
1998. By 2004, however, net rental yield was clearly moving downwards, making it a less
attractive investment proposition in terms of rental income. This indicates that expected
capital gains alone have driven the most recent wave of investment in the sector.
Figure 2.1 Yields on housing, gilts and equities
Source: CML (2006)
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
30-year gilt yield UK all share dividend yield Net rental yield
20
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
The comparison with other forms of investment is apt, as falling stock markets and
companies closing final salary pension schemes have been suggested in the literature as
two drivers for people to invest in residential property (eg Rhodes and Bevan, 2003). Ball
(2004) suggests that this has given people greater confidence in managing their own long-
term investment affairs rather than rely on financial market specialists, hence the rise in
BTL investment. Landlords themselves see their investment as medium- to long-term. For
example, the ARLA survey of landlords shows that over 2004 to 2007 most landlords
expected their property investment to last over 16 years (ARLA, 2007). However, such
intentions are bound to be adaptable to market pressures and changes, not just in
property but in other assets as well.
We must also acknowledge, though, that some people become private landlords for other,
non-financial reasons. For example, the evidence shows a rising trend of landlords
acquiring property with the intention of living in it. In addition, some landlords buy
properties to let to friends or family, sometimes rent-free, while organisational investors
buy bought property to let to employees as part of a remuneration package. These last
two types of landlord have little interest in the investment return of their properties and
more concern for the use of their properties. There is also a small proportion of people
who have inherited property (eg 14% of respondents in the Bridging NewcastleGateshead
survey: Green et al, 2007). Although the letting can then result in financial gain, this is not
the main reason they have acquired it.
The evidence suggests the following distinct groups of investors:
• small-scale, amateur landlords investing for their retirement;
• speculative investors seeking short-term capital growth, often in new-build
apartments; and
• professional landlords living on rental income.
We outline these groups in more depth below.
2.2 Amateurs investing for retirement
The BTL phenomenon, helped by BTL mortgages, has encouraged a generation to invest
in residential property. Yet much of this new investment is small-scale but long-term.
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of stock across the entire PRS by landlord’s portfolio
size. This clearly shows that the majority of stock (55%) is owned by landlords who own
fewer than 5 properties. In contrast, 12% of stock is owned by large-scale investors with
100+ properties.
21
2. Characteristics of investors and investment motives
Evidence of these small portfolios is also found in other surveys. For example, Scanlon
and Whitehead (2004) found that most non-professionals with BTL mortgages owned one
or two properties, and 69% of all these landlords owned less that six properties. Also, the
survey of private landlords in the Bridging NewcastleGateshead housing market renewal
area (Green et al, 2007) found that 57% of landlords owned 4 properties or less.
In addition to the small-scale nature of this investment, there has been a move away from
institutional investors to private individuals owning PRS property. The last national survey
showed that two-thirds (67%) of landlords were private individuals or couples (ODPM,
2006). This is mirrored elsewhere, for instance 81% of landlords letting to people on
housing benefit described themselves as private individuals or couples (DWP, 2006).
Furthermore, with such small portfolios, these landlords can fairly be described as
‘amateur’. For example, the survey of BTL landlords (Scanlon and Whitehead, 2004)
revealed that 68% had another full-time job and managed their investment in their spare
time.
Rather than seeking short-term gain or rental income, this group of BTL investors are
much more interested in long-term retirement planning (Rhodes and Bevan, 2003; Gibb
and Nygaard, 2005). Many of these landlords plan to keep their investments and live on
the rental income during retirement. Green et al (2007) also found that most landlords said
they were in it “for the long haul”, while the survey of BTL borrowers revealed that over
60% of landlords expected to stay in the residential market for at least 10 years (Scanlon
and Whitehead, 2004).
Figure 2.2 Distribution of private rented stock by size of landlord’s portfolio
Source: CLG (2008)
Landlord’s portfolio size
% of PRS stock
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
250+100-24950-9925-4910-245-92-41
22
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
2.3 Speculative investors in new-build
In sharp contrast to the long-term retirement planning of the above group, another group
of BTL investors seeks to gain through short-term capital appreciation. Due to high levels
of media attention this group is often most strongly identified with the rise of the BTL
phenomenon. While this group of property owners is undoubtedly distinct, most studies
show that speculative investors account for just a small proportion of the overall private
rental market. They are, however, significantly concentrated in new-build apartments in city
centres.
The ARLA survey of landlords showed that over 2004 to 2007 an average of just over 3%
had bought for short-term capital gains (of less than five years) (ARLA, 2007). The national
survey of landlords by the ODPM (2006) found that among new landlords nearly a third of
properties would not be relet if they became vacant. This suggests that they too are short-
term investors, potentially seeking rapid capital appreciation, though it could also indicate
short-term investment for other reasons. Ball (2004) points out that investors in recent
years will have seen significant year on year capital appreciation, unlike in previous and
shorter boom-bust cycles. He suggests this will have been an incentive for those investors
seeking short-term gains.
There has clearly been an attraction to certain types of property by these investors.
Unsworth (2007), for example, found that the city centre market in Leeds between 2001
and 2004 was driven by speculative investors looking for short-term capital gain. Most
apartments were bought off-plan with little regard for the quality of the product or the
location. This type of investment is also reported in studies elsewhere in Yorkshire and
Humber (Hickman et al, 2007), in Stoke-on-Trent (ECOTEC and SURF, 2006), Manchester
and Sheffield (Allen and Blandy, 2004) and Glasgow (Gibb and Nygaard, 2005). The 2003
national survey of landlords supports this, finding that ownership of modern properties
(build after 1964) and purpose-built flats was more common under new landlords than
under longer-term ones (ODPM, 2006).
According to the analysis of the central Nottingham housing market (Knight Frank
Residential Research, 2007), investors were more inclined to buy an unfinished product
than owner occupiers and were further attracted to new-builds due to their lower
maintenance, the potential for discounts for buying off-plan (up to 10% off), building
warranties, the potential for more efficient management if several units were bought within
one scheme and the ability to furnish and immediately rent a unit rather than have to
invest time and money renovating an older property.
23
2. Characteristics of investors and investment motives
This type of investment is sometimes labelled ‘buy to leave’, with properties bought as an
investment but with no intention of letting out. While this is going beyond the scope of our
project (as there is no intention of letting out), the evidence revealed the existence of this
sector. For example, the study of new-build homes in London (London Development
Research, 2006) found that 16% of purchases were to the ‘buy to sell’ group (Table 2.1).
But even in this study, the ‘buy to let’ group is three times as big, and expands further (to
58%) by the time of completion, as the majority of ‘buy to sell’ properties are sold-on to
‘buy to let’ investors. Yet the ‘buy to leave’ sector is an inherently unstable part of the
market as decisions about the future of properties may be taken quickly if market
conditions change.
Table 2.1 Who buys new homes in London?
Category Sub-category Number of
buyers in
London
Number of
purchases
(2005)
Number of
purchases
per buyer
% of total
purchases
Buy to
Let
Private individuals with <3 homes 3,000 4,500 1.5 28%
Private individuals: larger
portfolios
200 2,000 10.0 13%
Investment funds 15 750 50.0 5%
Total buy to let 3,215 7,250 2.3 45%
Buy to
Sell
Total buy to sell 50 2,500 50.0 16%
Build to
let
Developers 30 1,000 33.3 6%
RSLs 10 500 50.0 3%
Total build to let 40 1,500 37.5 9%
Owner
occupiers
First home 4,250 4,250 1.0 27%
Second home 500 500 1.0 3%
Total owner occupiers 4,750 4,750 1.0 30%
Total London 8,055 16,000 2.0 100%
Source: London Development Research (2006)
24
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
This sort of investment in new-build properties, more common among newer investors,
will inevitably lead to property price inflation providing that investors can sell at a profit.
However, there may be saturation of the PRS in some markets which could lead to a fall in
prices. According to Unsworth (2007), who was examining the development of the ‘urban
living’ phenomenon in Leeds, the market has changed since 2004 – with higher interest
rates, over-supply and declining yields – resulting in a tailing off of investor interest in this
market. This is an issue that needs to be monitored closely.
The London Development Research (2006) study also points to high levels of activity from
overseas investors in the capital. Quoting figures provided by Hampton International
covering some 1,000 home sales in recent developments, 56% of investors were found to
be from the UK and 44% from abroad, with the Middle East, South Africa, Western
Europe and Ireland well represented among foreign investors. Foreign investors were
found to be attracted to the UK market by the prevailing conditions of legal and political
stability and by the strength of sterling. For Irish investors a regulation change concerning
pension funds in Ireland was also a driver (Fox and Unsworth, 2005). This illustrates how
the far removed from the housing market some of the pressures driving investment can be.
Another local study (ECOTEC, 2007), this time of Merseyside, also found significant levels
of international investment in private rental property. Figure 2.3 shows the home or
company address of investors of a sample of property in the NewHeartlands pathfinder.
There are a significant number of personal investors from Ireland (particularly Wexford,
Dublin and Cork) and company investors from off-shore tax havens (Guernsey, the Isle of
Man and the British Virgin Islands). However, the study also shows that the largest
concentrations of investors were from within Merseyside and in Greater London. However,
the two studies quoted here may not be representative of the market as a whole.
25
2. Characteristics of investors and investment motives
Figure 2.3 Location of private non-owner occupiers in Merseyside sample
Source: Land Registry data of property sales in NewHeartlands Apr 01 to Mar 06 in ECOTEC (2007)
26
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
This BTL or buy-to-leave investment in new-build properties has had positive and negative
consequences. It has financed much new-build development, contributing to an increase
in housing supply (Rowlands et al, 2006) and greater choice for those who want to rent.
But there are also disadvantages of such activity. First, there is evidence of owner
occupiers being priced out of new-build developments, reducing the level of choice
available to them (Allen and Blandy, 2004). Second, BTL investment has spurred
developers to construct smaller, studio apartments (Knight Frank Residential Research,
2007; Rowlands et al, 2006). This is only a problem if people do not want them, which it
would seem they do not (Unsworth, 2007). This is because rental yields can be higher in
these units (Allen and Blandy, 2004) and because investors are also facing rising prices,
so want properties they can afford.
2.4 Professional landlords living on rental income
The third key group of BTL investors is professional landlords seeking rental income.
Scanlon and Whitehead found that almost a third (31%) of landlords owning more than
20 properties were acting under a company structure or as part of a partnership. These
property owners are therefore closer to being letting agents – many in fact do operate as
letting agencies – than private individuals.
The business model of those with large portfolios tends to be more focussed on
generating a positive cash flow from rental income and is less preoccupied with short-
term capital growth (Rhodes and Bevan, 2003; Scanlon and Whitehead, 2004). The 2003
national landlord survey found that over 60% of full-time landlords sought only rental yield
from their investment, the highest of any type of investor (ODPM, 2006). The study of BTL
borrowers by Rhodes and Bevan (2003) reiterated this and stated that for some of these
landlords capital growth was an irrelevance.
Understandably, this group of investors is also more professional and knowledgeable
about their work. For example, the CML survey (Scanlon and Whitehead, 2004) found that
‘professional landlords’ were generally more active in making changes to their portfolios
than non-professional landlords. This is backed up by Rhodes and Bevan (2003) who
found that full-time landlords were more commercially-focussed in disposing of
underperforming stock and maximising the yield of their portfolios. More experienced
landlords were generally felt to be in a stronger position to be able to weather short- or
medium-term market fluctuations.
27
2. Characteristics of investors and investment motives
2.5 Regional variation found
The evidence suggests some regional variation in BTL investment levels, although the
geographic coverage of the evidence is patchy. The CML-commissioned survey (Scanlon
and Whitehead, 2004) found the amount of BTL activity in London, the South East and
the South West regions to be disproportionate in relation to the population of these areas.
Activity was found to be considerably less prevalent in the East of England, the Midlands,
the North East and Yorkshire & Humber. However it should be noted that this survey
sample was not strictly representative due to the self-selection of the 12 lenders who took
part. This survey also revealed that a quarter of those landlords owning more than one
dwelling had properties in more than one region.
Some studies have suggested a link between investment in a certain area and the type of
stock available. New-build apartments have often been developed in city or town centres,
part of the urban renaissance drive. The studies back up the generally held view that BTL
investment (as well as buy-to-leave) has been prevalent in these developments. This is
clearly evidenced in the study of London (London Development Research, 2006),
particularly in east London where prices were lower, in Nottingham (Knight Frank
Residential Research, 2007), Leeds (Fox and Unsworth, 2005; Unsworth, 2007),
Manchester and Sheffield (Allen and Blandy, 2004), Liverpool (ECOTEC, 2007) and
Glasgow (Gibb and Nygaard, 2005).
Housing market renewal areas and other lower-value areas with poor property conditions
have developed a different BTL segment. According to Sprigings (2007, but echoed in
CSR Partnership, 2004; Knight-Markiegi, 2006) much of the BTL activity in pathfinder
areas concerned cheaper houses, especially in areas dominated by older terraced
housing. This finding is also reported by Hickman et al (2007) in the case of Beeston Hill,
an inner-city neighbourhood of Leeds with a high PRS and mainly pre-1919 terraced
stock, in the study of Hull (CRESR, 2007) and of the Merseyside pathfinder (ECOTEC,
2007). This last one found a large concentration in low-value terraced housing, making up
some three-quarters of private rented stock. Most of these properties in Merseyside are
small, lack space, have no garden and are overcrowded. Because of its old age, much is
likely to need repairs or improvements and offer poor thermal insulation.
While the above section discussed foreign investment into BTL, and numerous studies
have talked about ‘flush’ investors from London buying elsewhere in the UK, many
landlords still buy property in their local area. Rhodes and Bevan (2003) found that most
landlords preferred to invest close to home, firstly because local knowledge was seen to
be important in making shrewd investment decisions, and secondly because this made
management and maintenance easier. A predominance of local landlords was also found
in the studies of Yorkshire and the Humber (Hickman et al, 2007), Merseyside (ECOTEC,
2007), Newcastle and Gateshead (Green et al, 2007), East Lancashire (Pendle Borough
Council, 2007), Stoke-on-Trent (ECOTEC and SURF, 2006) and Glasgow (Gibb and
Nygaard, 2005). This last study also found that these local landlords, who were often
small-scale, were generally committed to the market for the longer term.
28
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
2.6 Summary of key findings
The overriding motive for private landlords is to receive a financial return, with returns in
residential property outperforming other forms of investment in recent times. Yet landlords
have different motives for investing. The biggest group of BTL investors are small-scale
and amateur, investing for retirement. These are most likely to expect to continue letting
property over the medium- to long-term.
Speculative investors form a second group, though much smaller in size. They are seeking
short-term gain through capital growth and are concentrated in new-build apartments.
There is also overlap between this group and the ‘buy-to-leave’ phenomenon, with
properties bought as an investment but with no intention of letting out. A concern for both
groups is that there appears to be a saturation of the PRS in some markets which could
lead to a fall in prices. Another worry is that such investment has encouraged developers
to build small apartments, although there may not be sufficient household demand for
such units.
The third key group of landlords are those who own large portfolios. These investors
are more focussed on generating a positive cash flow from rental income and less
preoccupied with short-term capital growth. Understandably, this group of investors
is also more professional and knowledgeable about housing tax and finance.
29
3. Housing quality and voids
Going beyond the characteristics of investors and attraction to particular types of dwelling,
this section considers the condition of properties in the BTL market and void levels.
3.1 Improvement to property conditions
Table 3.1 shows the rates of unfitness across all tenures from 1991 to 2001 (Kemp,
2004). This clearly shows that private renting has consistently held the highest level of
unfitness (also found in ODPM, 2006), although fitness has increased dramatically over
the decade, which coincides with the expansion of the sector. When broken down, the
highest levels of unfitness are found in terraced houses and converted flats.
Table 3.1 Rate of unfitness by tenure in England, 1991 to 2001
(% of households)
Tenure 1991 1996 2001
Owner occupation 5.4 5.4 2.9
RSL rented 7.1 3.8 3.0
Council rented 6.8 6.8 4.1
Private rented 24.7 17.9 10.3
Source: Kemp (2004) Table 6.7
When looking at the alternative definition of housing quality, the decency standard, private
rented properties again perform badly (Kemp, 2004). Breaking down the sector by sub-
sector (Table 3.2), regulated tenants fare worst, with 74% living in non-decent housing.
This is due to three reasons. First, the old age of many of the dwellings, with therefore
more use and in need of more work. Second, the long history of rent controls has made
it uneconomical for landlords to repair or maintain properties. Third, many of the tenants
will be classed as vulnerable (in receipt of housing benefit and elderly) and will have weak
bargaining power.
Table 3.2 Privately renting households living in non-decent
housing in England
PRS sub-sector % living in non-decent housing
Regulated 74
Non-regulated 49
Not accessible to public 37
All private tenants 49
Source: Kemp (2004) Table 6.8
Looking at the regional picture, it appears that property repair condition is poorer the
further away it is from London and the South East (Crook, 2002). Urban and city centre
properties along with rural dwellings in village centres and in non-residential locations are
also in relatively poor repair. However, much of the data used for this study relates to the
time before BTL mortgages, so must be treated with caution.
30
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
In terms of the link between landlord type and property condition the 2003 national survey
(ODPM, 2006) noted that companies tend to own a higher proportion of older dwellings
than other landlord types, and lower rates of decency. In contrast, dwellings acquired
since 1999 – a fifth of dwellings – tend to be in better condition than dwellings already in
the sector. Together, these suggest that the quality of properties in the PRS improves
most with the replacement of poor-quality stock by dwellings in better condition rather
than the active modification by landlords.
Crook (2002) found that the likelihood of work being undertaken and of the amount spent
on the work also relate to the character and motivation of the landlord. He showed that
addresses in the worst conditions were more likely to be owned by landlords who regard
them as investments whereas those in the best conditions were more like to be owned by
those who do not have investment motives.
One local level study, of Stoke-on-Trent (ECOTEC and SURF, 2006), found that there had
been three distinct drivers of stock improvement for student landlords. First, Staffordshire
University registration scheme initially set minimum standards but raised these standards
each year. Second, the action of a few landlords had improved the condition of student
rentals. One landlord was renowned for the quality of his stock and for raising the
standard of student houses more widely. He had purposely positioned himself as a
landlord of good quality stock, buying properties in a bad state but investing to improve
them (also seen in Knight-Markiegi, 2006). This had the effect of encouraging other
landlords to improve their stock. Third, Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s landlord accreditation
scheme had promoted membership by offering 50% property improvement grants to
members. This action increased membership and got landlords to invest in the fabric of
their properties sooner than they would have otherwise done.
The statistical study by Crook (2002) also looked particularly at the issue of stock quality
and its relationship to rental income and property price. He found that returns, not rents,
were related to property condition. The best condition properties tended to be better
maintained than those in poorer condition. So annual spending on maintenance and minor
repair was greater for properties in better condition, thus reducing the level of return. But
vacant possession market values were higher among the better condition than the poorer
condition properties. This means that some landlords will be interested in maintaining
already good-quality homes, seeking capital growth and hoping for longer-term tenants,
while others will be happy to receive rental income from poor-quality properties (Knight-
Markiegi, 2006). Rhodes and Bevan (2003) labelled these two groups as “turnover
minimisers” and “rent maximisers” respectively.
Knight-Markiegi (2006) summarised three distinct pathways for landlords and property
conditions, which sums up much of this evidence (Figure 3.1). Although related to a low-
value housing market, his findings appear transferable to other areas. One group of
investors is interested in buying good-quality properties for higher prices, receiving a lower
rental yield but hoping for capital gain. This group is closely aligned to the group of
amateur but long-term landlords. A second group is interested in buying cheap properties
31
3. Housing quality and voids
but investing in them to minimise turnover by tenants and again seeking capital gain. The
third group is happy to buy poor-quality properties and keep them so, receiving higher
rents but also facing higher turnover, so higher management costs. This last group shares
a short-term focus as the speculative, ‘buy-to-leave’ investors but is investing in poor-
quality, rather than new and good-quality, properties.
Figure 3.1 Property condition and returns for landlords
Poor-quality
properties
Poor-quality
properties
Good-quality
properties
Low property
prices
Low property
prices
High property
prices
Rent lower
than mortgage
Capital remaining
Properties improved
by landlords
Properties left
in poor state
Low rental
yield
High rental
yield
Low rental
yield
Lower rental
yield
Capital
growth
Capital
growth
Low
turnover
High
turnover
High management
cost
Source: Adapted from Knight-Markiegi (2006)
3.2 Consistent level of voids
Evidence on vacancy periods and void rates is patchy but generally consistent. Two large-
scale surveys of landlords (ODPM, 2006; DWP, 2005) found that at the time of interview
some 6%–7% of landlords’ properties were vacant. When looking at the duration of voids,
most studies show that the average void rate in market renting (so ignoring ‘buy-to-leave’)
is about one month per year (ARLA, 2007; Ball, 2004, which includes evidence from a
variety of sources; Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005).
32
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
Ball relates this level of voids to the mobility of tenants. Evidence from ARLA (2007) shows
that the average length of tenure for private tenants is some 15–17 months, which leads
to continual churn in the sector. But this is partly what the PRS is about: providing quick
and easy access to – and exit from – housing.
The 2003 national survey of landlords (ODPM, 2006) found that over half of vacant
properties were non-decent, higher than all other properties let for less than six years.
A study in one housing market renewal pathfinder (Green et al, 2007) found that landlords
with city centre or waterfront apartments were most likely to report that some of their
properties were empty, followed by landlords who owned a house converted into self-
contained flats or into bedsits. When looking at regional differences, the evidence is very
slight. Only ARLA (2007) covers this to some degree, showing that void rates were higher
in ‘prime central London’ than ‘elsewhere in the South East’ and ‘rest of the UK’ from late
2003 (when the survey began) to late 2006; since then, though, rates had equalised
between the areas covered.
While the level of voids is relatively consistent, empty properties of course cost landlords
in lost rent. Scanlon and Whitehead (2005) found that among BTL borrowers the most
common means of covering mortgage payments during void periods was to use savings.
Surplus rents from other properties, and from the same property, were also significant.
Providing that vacant properties are occupied in a relatively short time, there is little fear
of BTL borrowers defaulting on their mortgage payments on a large scale. In fact, the level
of arrears among BTL borrowers is lower than across the mortgage market as a whole
(Thomas, 2006). But there would be a public policy concern if demand dropped or there
was an oversupply in the BTL market.
3.3 Summary of key evidence
The private renting has consistently held the highest level of unfitness among all tenures,
although fitness has increased dramatically over the decade. Improvement to property
condition appears to happen more with new stock entering the market than by the active
modification by landlords.
Some BTL investors are happy to hold on to poor-quality stock and obtain high rental
yield, though have little interested in long-term capital growth. These landlords have been
called ‘rent maximisers’, though may face higher voids. Another group of landlords often
buys good-quality stock and invest to maintain this high standard or buys poor quality
stock but improves it. These investors will receive better capital growth but reduced net
rental yield, because of higher management and maintenance costs.
Evidence on vacancy periods and void rates is patchy but generally consistent. Some
6%–7% of landlords’ properties appear to be vacant at any one time, and the duration
of voids is about one month per year. These figures are probably affordable for BTL
investors, but there would be a public policy concern if demand dropped or the BTL
market became saturated with supply.
33
4. Investors and the wider
housing market
BTL investment has made a significant impact on the PRS at large, now accounting for at
least a fifth of the entire sector. But how have investors used BTL mortgages and what
affect has all this had on property prices and homeowners? These issues are considered
in this section.
4.1 Financing purchases with BTL mortgages
In assessing the proportion of the PRS with BTL mortgages, much of the literature has
looked at the use of mortgages and other types of loan. ODPM (2006) states that almost
half (46%) of landlords bought property using mortgages, though this rises to 54% for
private individuals and even further to 64% for new landlords (those involved in renting for
up to three years). This is in clear contrast to the situation in 1998, when three-quarters of
PRS properties were bought with cash (ODPM, 2003). Investors are clearly attracted to
borrowing, particularly BTL mortgages, to finance their purchases.
Scanlon and Whitehead (2005) provide further evidence about investors’ use of BTL
mortgages. They find that at least half of landlords had mortgages on all their properties,
but many had unmortgaged property in their portfolio. Variable interest rates, particularly
trackers, were the most common type, with most loan-to-value ratios between 26% and
75%; the maximum allowed by providers is now 85%. The vast majority of landlords had
interest-only mortgages, which minimise the monthly cost. Another reason is that
mortgage interest payments are tax deductible for landlords, while payments of principal
are not. Their research also found that large landlords were more likely than small ones to
have interest-only mortgages, suggesting a greater awareness of housing tax and finance.
Both the lending industry (eg Thomas, 2006) and some academics (particularly Ball,
2004, 2006) view BTL mortgages as a positive contribution to how investors operate.
They particularly stress the optimal use of gearing, which is the relationship between
invested equity and debt. In this sense, gearing in the property market is about reducing
personal capital in investments in order to gain greater return. Using evidence from ARLA,
Ball (2004) states that the total return for residential investors could double if 75% of the
initial capital costs were borrowed instead of by paying cash for an outright sale.
Ball (2004, 2006) states that gearing is low in the PRS, and sees much potential for
investors to improve their returns. He concludes that this demonstrates the lack of
financial sophistication in the market. If there was more gearing, BTL mortgage lending
could grow significantly in future, Ball believes, and the “private rental sector could
operate on lower gross returns, if potential gearing and associated tax effects were
adopted more effectively” (Ball, 2004, p34). While this latter point could well be true, it is
dependent on investors being financially astute and changing their financial behaviour
accordingly. This will be the case for some investors (as demonstrated in Hickman et al,
2007), but Ball himself labels many investors as “still relatively financially unsophisticated”
(Ball, 2004, p34) and having “limited understanding of the benefits of borrowing linked to
gearing and taxation” (Ball, 2006, p14). So, some investors will not use BTL finance to
their full benefit.
34
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
For the lending industry, BTL borrowers are currently proving to be safer investors than
across the whole mortgage market. This is demonstrated by lower levels of arrears. At the
end of June 2006 the proportion of BTL mortgages in arrears of three months was 0.73%,
compared with 0.96% for the wider mortgage market (Thomas, 2006b). As such – and no
doubt due to the reduced numbers of first-time buyer mortgages – BTL lenders have
recently relaxed their lending criteria. The typical maximum loan-to-value ratio has risen to
85% and minimum interest cover ratio falling to 125% (Thomas, 2006b); previously it was
80% and 130% respectively (Ball, 2004).
4.2 Some effect on property prices
Few of the studies provide empirical evidence on a direct relationship between BTL
investment and house prices, and none has shown that BTL alone has increased prices.
One local level study of Glasgow found that one in three landlords explicitly attributed the
rental market investment to contributing to higher house prices, though a minority said it
had no impact on prices (Gibb and Nygaard, 2005). But this is just anecdotal evidence
from a small number of investors. A second local level study also includes similar
anecdotal evidence: that the buoyancy of the PRS of Burngreave in Sheffield had
contributed to house price inflation (Hickman et al, 2007).
However, Hickman et al (2007) also concluded that no single element had precipitated
rapid house growth in the four case study areas they assessed. They call for a better
understanding on the type of local housing market before pronouncing on the effects of
BTL. Instead, what we have witnessed across England has been the parallel rise in
property prices and growth of the PRS, particularly around BTL activity. Alternative
reasons for the rise in property prices include weak housing supply, new demand as a
result of in-migration, low rates of property transactions, rising incomes at a time of low
interest rates and the deregulation of mortgage markets (Birch, 2007; Meen, 2006). On
this basis, BTL investors are as much affected by rising property prices as they affect
them.
There is stronger evidence that private landlords are attracted to low value properties,
therefore making an association between BTL and property prices. ODPM (2006) found
that areas with higher than average concentrations of private renting were most frequently
found in areas where the housing market was healthy but house prices were modest. This
association is further demonstrated by evidence from lenders that BTL investors bought
properties cheaper than average prices, £78,000 compared to more than £100,000
(Pannell and Heron, 2001). This study also suggested that 80% of rented properties held
by residential landlords was made up of flats and terraced houses. Gibb and Nygaard
(2005) found consensus among stakeholders that BTL activity targeted one- and two-
bedroom properties at the lower end of valuations. Taken together, this evidence suggests
that a group of investors choose to buy relatively cheap property (as seen in the above
section on property condition). Apart from being more affordable, cheaper property can
lead to higher returns.
35
4. Investors and the wider housing market
4.3 Competition with first-time buyers?
A big question for policy makers is the effect, if any, of BTL investment on owner
occupiers. There is concern that investors have priced out first-time buyers. The evidence
we reviewed is ambiguous. A number of the studies point to a more complex situation in
the housing market. For example, a study into understanding housing demand (Hickman
et al, 2007) concludes that there was no single ingredient that had precipitated rapid
house growth in the case study areas. From the mortgage lending perspective, Thomas
(2006a) also stresses the complexity between BTL and first-time buyers, highlighting that
there is also movement from the PRS to owner occupation (also documented in Ball,
2004; Hickman et al, 2007). Thomas concludes that the ability of tenure to shift in
response to changing patterns of demand should be welcomed as it provides much
needed flexibility in a housing market prone to rigidity.
A number of studies state that rather than BTL pricing out first-time buyers, it is attitudes
to homeownership that have changed. Thomas (2006b), for example, contests whether
BTL investment has caused a reduction in first-time buyers or just coincided with a
change in attitude among young households. He highlights the later entry of households
into owner occupation. Although this is sometimes put down to affordability pressures,
Thomas traces this trend back to the last housing slump in the late 1980s and early
1990s, when he argues that attitudes to homeownership among the younger generation
changed. A study looking into tenure choices by the young (Andrew, 2006) stresses that
increased debt for graduates is also a factor limiting the ability of young people to become
homeowners. This viewpoint concludes that these social and economic trends have had
obvious implications for tenure preferences, putting a premium on the flexibility that private
renting provides while reducing the priority given to the security and asset acquisition
involved in homeownership.
Tatch (2007) argues that a different reason, not BTL, has reduced the number of first-time
buyers. Using survey data of mortgage lenders he points to the fact that the size of the
18-34 age group had fallen from a just below 15 million in 1991 to a low point of some
13 million in 2004 and that this demographic decline could be reasonably linked to the
decline in the numbers of first-time buyers. Tatch found that first-time buyer activity has
at worst remained stable since 2004, but at the same time affordability has become
increasingly stretched. He estimated that in 2005 46% of first-time buyers under the age
of 30 were likely to be getting substantial financial help (from parents and other relatives)
to raise a deposit, a proportion which had steadily risen over the past decade. He
concluded that such assistance entails the housing equity of mature owner occupiers
being recycled back. Tatch considers the implication of this for the health of the wider
housing market. In particular, something of a vicious circle could evolve as recycled equity
would drive prices up further leading to an increasingly polarised housing market, with the
children of parents who are themselves homeowners accounting for a progressively larger
proportion of first-time buyers.
36
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
Two reports in particular argue that BTL has provided a demand-led alternative. Ball
(2004) and Thomas (2006a) stress that there is greater demand for private renting today
than in the past. Thomas states that demographic, financial and lifestyle factors have
increased demand for private rented accommodation, such as increasing levels of divorce
and separation, people remaining single for longer and couples being increasingly likely to
cohabit rather than marry. In addition, rising numbers of students and new immigrants
also require a flexible tenure to meet their housing needs. These two groups, along with
other low income but renting households, were also important to the PRS case study of
Beeston Hill in Hickman et al (2007) and in other studies (eg ECOTEC, 2007). In this light
the BTL sector is seen as a vehicle for facilitating growth in the private rental housing
stock to meet increasing demand.
Ball (2004) agrees with this, stating that the development of BTL has widened market
choice, particularly for younger households who have high mobility and do not have the
financial circumstances to allow access to owner occupation. Furthermore he argues that
renting for many younger households over the past decade has represented the lower
risk, high current-consumption option. Ball also believes that the development of BTL has
increased competition in the PRS leading to higher standards of accommodation,
contributing to more people wanting to rent. So for Ball and Thomas, the expansion of the
PRS and the BTL phenomenon is a natural and healthy market response to demand
pressure.
A very recent study (Wilcox, 2007) also suggests that the PRS is an affordable alternative
– sometimes one of choice – for young people. It stresses that the sector should be
considered ‘affordable housing’ alongside efforts to make owner occupation affordable.
Wilcox details how private rents in England and Wales in 2006 represented less than two-
thirds of the level of house purchase costs. This is because private sector rents have
simply kept pace with earnings growth since 1994, whereas house prices have risen
much higher. He concludes that a substantial proportion of younger working households
unable to buy locally could nonetheless afford to rent.
Other studies point to a different interplay between BTL investment and first-time buyers.
There is the competition in small new-build apartments, discussed above, and city centre
or waterside developments. This is probably the strongest case for BTL investors pricing
out potential owner occupiers. However, much of the BTL investment is in other types of
stock and in different parts of the housing market, so not directly competing. The Beeston
Hill case study in Hickman et al (2007) is a good example, where stakeholders said that
new investor interest was largely driven by a buoyant local demand for rental housing in
combination with cheap house prices. Rather than pricing out first-time buyers, the study
reports that local landlords were being squeezed out by new landlords, a process
welcomed by one respondent due to property improvements being made by these
newcomers.
37
4. Investors and the wider housing market
Because of the focus of our study (on BTL rather than owner occupation), we found little
mention of the lack of housing supply leading to price rises, although a few studies (eg
Ball, 2004; Birch, 2007; Meen, 2006) do acknowledge this process. Nor have we found
empirical evidence about BTL investment in former right-to-buy estates. These inevitably
convert an owner occupied home into a privately rented one, but such properties are
more likely to house somebody in place of social renting than providing competition for
first-time buyers.
4.4 Summary of key findings
The lending industry and some academics view BTL mortgages as a positive contribution
to how investors operate. Some state that gearing is low in the PRS, and see much
potential for investors to improve their returns if they borrower further. For the lending
industry, BTL borrowers are currently proving to be safer investors than across the
mortgage market, as BTL borrowers have lower levels of arrears.
Few of the studies provide empirical evidence on a direct relationship between BTL
investment and house prices, and none has shown that BTL alone has increased prices.
Instead, a number of studies conclude that the housing market is more complex, with no
single element precipitating rapid house growth. There is stronger evidence that private
landlords are attracted to low value properties, therefore making an association between
BTL and property prices.
There is also concern that investors have priced out first-time buyers. Yet the evidence is
ambiguous. A number of studies state that rather than pricing out first-time buyers, BTL is
providing a demand-led alternative at a time when attitudes to homeownership have
changed. Other studies point to a different interplay between BTL investment and first-
time buyers. The strongest case for BTL investors pricing out potential owner occupiers is
found in the competition for small new-build apartments and city centre or waterside
developments.
38
5. Future prospects
Of great importance to any discussion about BTL are the future prospects of the sector.
A large amount of the literature has looked at this. In this section we break the subject
down into the buoyancy of the market, the affect on landlord behaviour and the need for
ongoing demand for private rented properties.
5.1 Buoyant investment for the medium to long term
We have already discussed the range of motivations of BTL investors. Some seek short-
term gain while others are planning for retirement. Yet most studies found that the
majority of landlords regarded their investments as medium- to long-term. For example,
the 2003 national survey of landlords found that 81% of landlords intended to still be
letting property in five years’ time, while 68% expected to in 10 years’ time (ODPM,
2006). The survey of BTL borrowers also found long-term plans, with more than 60%
stating they expected to stay in the residential rental market for more than 10 years
(Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005).
A number of the studies have also looked at what landlords would do if the property
became vacant. In the 2003 national survey over three-quarters (77%) of landlords said
they would immediately relet their property if it became vacant tomorrow (ODPM, 2006).
This is slightly higher than in 2001 (ODPM, 2003). When looking over a longer timeframe,
most landlords expect to hold a similar size portfolio. The 2003 national survey found that
55% of landlords expected to keep the same number of dwellings for the following two
years (ODPM, 2006), broadly the same as BTL borrowers over the following 12 months
(Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005). The survey of members of ARLA (2007) also shows that
the majority of landlords were maintaining their same portfolio throughout the survey
period (from late 2004 to early 2007). This evidence again shows that most landlords see
their investment as medium- to long-term.
In most studies that reported it, more landlords intend to buy properties than sell them.
The 2001 national survey found that one in five landlords (21%) expected to acquire more
property to rent out in the next two years compared to 11% who expect their renting
activities to contract (ODPM, 2003). The 2003 national survey found an even greater ratio
(ODPM, 2006). The survey of BTL borrowers found that 38% planned to increase the size
of their portfolio while just 6% planned to decrease it or leave the market altogether
(Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005). The quarterly survey of landlords by ARLA (2007) also
found a stronger intention of buying more BTL properties, with the majority of landlords
saying so. These last two surveys show a stronger likelihood of increasing portfolio size
perhaps because they looked at a shorter timescale, just a year, and asked BTL
borrowers rather than all types of landlord. These investors, who are clearly engaged with
housing finance (through BTL mortgages), may be more likely to increase their activities
than other types of landlord.
39
5. Future prospects
5.2 Interest rates and personal finance affect landlord behaviour
Some studies went beyond this and asked landlords what changes might prompt a
change to the size of their portfolios. The survey of BTL borrowers (Scanlon and
Whitehead, 2005) found that stable or low interest rates, stable or rising house prices and
very good rental yields were seen as primary reasons for increasing one’s investment
portfolio; rising interest rates and insufficient rental income to cover mortgage payments
were identified as primary reasons for decreasing holdings. With a bigger PRS and greater
use of mortgages, there is a concern that BTL borrowers would amplify any market
downturn by exiting the market all together if faced with the possibility of declining capital
values (CML, 2004). But this conflicts with the stated intentions of landlords to invest for
the longer term and hold on to property in a downturn, the CML briefing states. This is
echoed in the survey of BTL landlords by Scanlon and Whitehead (2005) and by ARLA
(2007). The latter reports that the overwhelming majority of landlords said they would not
sell their properties if prices were to fall, between 82% and 90% throughout the period of
the survey (mid 2004 to early 2007).
The in-depth research by Scanlon and Whitehead (2005) reported a range of previous
studies to suggest that landlords’ behaviour is cyclical rather than counter-cyclical:
landlords acquire property in a rising market and dispose of it in a falling market, rather
than using the opportunity to stock up at low prices. However, their study suggested that
having low gearing might encourage landlords to hold on to the properties even if prices
fall. But the authors warn that landlords’ predicted behaviour and their actual behaviour
might not be the same, and that new entrants may not behave as their predecessors did
(as the warning on investment products always states: ‘past performance is no guarantee
of future performance’).
A number of studies conclude that the risks are greatest for new investors. These are
most likely to be inexperienced in the letting process, have higher financial risks (CML,
2004) and experience slower capital growth (Hometrack, 2007). The survey of BTL
borrowers found that nearly a third of non-professional landlords and two-fifths of
landlords with only one property reported a worsening personal finance situation as a
reason for decreasing their portfolios (Scanlon and Whitehead, 2005). These
inexperienced landlords were also twice as likely to say they would sell because of
stagnating or falling property prices as experienced landlords. This analysis suggests that
if there were a sustained property price downturn, it would be the most recently bought
BTL properties that would come onto the market. This could be unsettling if they are
concentrated in particular property ‘hot-spots’ and would be painful for these investors.
40
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
5.3 Importance of demand for private renting
Hometrack (2006) estimates that demographic, economic and social factors will combine
to increase demand for private rented housing over the next 15–20 years. Based on
demographic projections alone, there is potential demand for an additional 600,000
private rented homes by 2021. However, high levels of in-migration to the UK, persistently
high house prices and changing attitudes towards renting are likely to result in total
demand exceeding this number. The article states that most future demand will come
from two key groups: the ‘mid-market’ segment that would otherwise be in owner
occupation; and ‘displaced’ demand from those in housing need who are unable to
access the social rented sector. With expectations of such large growth in demand, the
article concludes that the supply of rented accommodation is the biggest problem and
where the focus of attention should lie. The recently published report by the NHPAU
(2007) also stresses the need for increased supply, even higher than current targets.
In contrast, Ball (2004) believes that demand for private renting will decrease in future,
especially with the decline in the young adult age cohort, particularly in South East
England and London. However, this may be tempered by the lack of affordability of owner
occupation pushing young households into the PRS. But he believes that a large-scale
increase in the PRS can only be expected in the near future if social housing is reformed,
though an unlikely prospect given the Housing Green paper. Yet he believes that the
tendency to introduce regulations whenever there is a problem could reduce the level of
investment in BTL.
There is considerable uncertainty over the likely future demand for private renting. What is
clear, though, is that unless demand for rented properties is maintained the PRS will not
be able to sustain current levels or grow further. On balance, it appears that demand will
increase because of affordability problems in owner occupation and quite large changes
to the population structure from new migrants (documented more recently than Ball was
writing in 2004). So long as supply has not become saturated, BTL will have a place; but
where an over-supply has already occurred, a short-term contraction may take place.
5.4 Summary of key findings
Most studies found that the majority of landlords regarded their investments as medium-
to long-term and that landlords plan to maintain the size of their portfolio. But more
landlords, particularly BTL borrowers, intend to buy properties than sell them, showing
confidence in the market.
One in-depth survey of BTL borrowers found that stable or low interest rates, stable
or rising house prices and very good rental yields were seen as primary reasons for
increasing one’s investment portfolio; rising interest rates and insufficient rental income
to cover mortgage payments were identified as primary reasons for decreasing holdings.
This is used to show that landlords’ behaviour is cyclical rather than counter-cyclical.
41
5. Future prospects
A number of studies conclude that the risks are greatest for new investors. These are
most likely to be inexperienced in the letting process, have higher financial risks and
experience slower capital growth. If these landlords have to sell up, this would be
unsettling if they are concentrated in particular property ‘hot-spots’ and would be painful
for these investors.
There is considerable uncertainty over the likely future demand for private renting. But on
balance, it appears that demand will increase because of affordability problems in owner
occupation and quite large changes to the population structure from new migrants. So
long as supply has not become saturated, BTL will have a place; but where an over-
supply has already occurred, a short-term contraction may take place.
Although unreported in the published studies, the second half of 2007 there has certainly
witnessed tremors in the housing market. The crisis around sub-prime mortgage lending
in the United States has led to an international credit crunch, the run on Northern Rock
and the fall in property prices in much of England have all increased the volatility of the
market. Investors must surely be nervous and potentially deterred from buying additional
properties until the picture is clearer.
42
Having outlined the literature, this section synthesises the evidence and draws out the
implications for public policy. It also highlights where the evidence has been weakest and
suggests further research to fill these gaps.
6.1 The growth of BTL
The PRS is today bigger in both number and as a share of all households than its lowest
point in the late-1980s. BTL mortgages, introduced in 1996, have made a significant
contribution to this rise. They have brought a new generation of investors into the
residential property market, spurred by attractive returns in comparison to traditional
pensions and the equity market. BTL has helped to make it socially acceptable to invest
in property. Most recently, BTL makes up at least one fifth of the entire PRS, though
probably more, as landlords realise the potential for higher returns through mortgaging
their properties. Some commentators believe that this gearing could go even further,
taking even more stock into borrowed equity. The lending industry is also keen to
promote BTL borrowing, and sees it as a safer choice than across the mortgage market.
6.2 Stability and risks for amateur investors
But there are different motivations for buying and letting property, mostly driven by a
desire for a financial return. The biggest group of investors are small-scale and amateur
landlords, investing in few properties and seeking a return for their retirement. Because
these people regard their investments as medium- to long-term, they provide stability to
the sector. However, their inexperience in the rental market can pose some risks,
especially as many have personal finance tied up in their properties. For new investors,
the risks are even greater, as these landlords will be most inexperienced, have higher
financial risks and experience slower capital growth than longer-term investors. This
suggests that if there were a sustained property price downturn, it would be the most
recently bought BTL properties that would come onto the market.
6.3 Speculators can spur and unsettle the market
A small proportion of BTL investors have made speculative investments for short-term
capital growth. They are significant in new-build apartments in city centre and waterside
developments. Such large investment has financed much of the continual development,
crucial in meeting an increased level of housing supply. But it has also priced out potential
owner occupiers from some developments and influenced the type of apartment built,
boosting the number of smaller units.
This market segment has also seen overlap between real BTL investors and those
labelled ‘buy-to-leave’ investors, those who buy property with no intention of letting it out.
The latter have also been attracted to new-build developments as they offer lower
maintenance, potential discounts if bought off-plan, greater security and the hope of high
capital growth. However, at least one study has suggested that this type of investment is
tailing off in Leeds because of higher interest rates, over-supply and declining yields. This
is an issue to monitor closely in similar housing markets across the country.
6. Conclusions
43
6. Conclusions
6.4 Professional landlords ride the storm
A third group of BTL investors is professional landlords living on rental income. They are
closer to letting agents than private individuals, act in a more professional way and are
knowledgeable about housing tax and finance. The analysis suggests many of these are
remortgaging their properties using BTL loans, often with interest-only mortgages. Such
landlords are generally felt to be able to weather short- or medium-term market
fluctuations.
6.5 Cyclical behaviour from landlords
Landlord behaviour appears to be cyclical rather than counter-cyclical: landlords acquire
property in a rising market and dispose of it in a falling market, rather than using the
opportunity to stock up at low prices. Landlords generally feel confident about their
portfolios, particularly BTL borrowers, and more plan to increase than decrease their
stock. However, fallout from the Northern Rock problems and the international credit
squeeze in the second half of 2007 may affect investor behaviour. One in-depth study
found that stable or low interest rates, stable or rising house prices and very good rental
yields were seen as primary reasons for increasing one’s investment portfolio; rising
interest rates and insufficient rental income to cover mortgage payments were identified
as primary reasons for decreasing holdings. But the report also warns that landlords’
predicted behaviour and their actual behaviour might not be the same, and that new
entrants may not behave as their predecessors did.
6.6 Property conditions are improving
Private rented stock has consistently held the highest level of unfitness among all tenures,
although fitness has increased dramatically. Improvement seems to come from the
replacement of poor-quality stock with dwellings in better condition, rather than the active
modification by landlords. Some landlords are happy to buy good-quality properties and
maintain these high standards, gaining better capital growth in the long term. Others –
described as ‘rent maximisers’ – seek short-term income by letting out poor-quality
properties and have little interest in the long-term state of the stock. A third group of
investors has actively bought poor quality stock for low prices but invested in this to
minimise turnover and improve capital growth.
6.7 The housing market is complex
House prices are driven by a complex interplay of factors. BTL investment will be one
of these but not the sole or even necessary the major factor. The evidence shows the
strongest direct relationship between BTL and new-build apartments, along with the
knock-on effect of pricing out first-time buyers. The low price of old terraced stock in
housing market renewal areas has been an incentive for BTL investment, which will have
helped stimulate prices in these locations, though in itself causing affordability problems
for low- to medium-income households seeking to buy. But alternative reasons for the rise
in property prices include weak housing supply, low rates of property transactions, rising
incomes at a time of low interest rates and the deregulation of mortgage markets.
44
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
While some commentators believe that BTL has priced out first-time buyers, the evidence
also presents an alternative viewpoint. This one sees BTL as a healthy market response to
demand pressure. Young households, students, new migrants and people displaced from
social housing have all increased demand for private renting; demographic, financial and
lifestyle factors have also increased demand; while attitudes to homeownership have
changed and affordability has deterred potential owner occupiers. On this basis, the PRS
acts as an affordable alternative to young people in particular. So long as demand
continues and the BTL market does not become saturated with supply, BTL will have a
place; but where an over-supply has already occurred, a short-term contraction may be
necessary and this will be intensified if others are coming through he planning pipeline.
6.8 Future research is needed
This large-scale review of the BTL market has covered a lot of ground. But we have found
the evidence to be patchy. While there is strong evidence on characteristics of investors,
the housing markets they invest in and the future prospects for the sector, the biggest
gaps are empirical evidence on whether BTL investment is ‘pricing out’ first-time buyers
and evidence around the supply and quality of BTL housing stock. Because of the fast
pace of change in the BTL sector, reports published as recently as 2002 can also be
considered out of date. There are also gaps in the geography covered.
We suggest that future research on BTL should therefore look at:
• The extent to which BTL investment has ‘priced out’ first-time buyers, and how this
interacts with the local housing market. This is particularly important because of the
continued affordability gap for many first-time buyers. Certain housing markets are
more likely than others to face these problems, such as city centres, regeneration
areas and new-build developments.
• The motivation to invest in property maintenance by newer landlords, and their use of
managing agents. There links into the decent homes agenda and is coupled with the
risk that inexperienced landlords are less able to manage their properties and to
maintain stock in good condition. In addition, the role of managing agents has been
little studied.
• Demand for private renting among new groups, particularly A8 migrants. This has
important links with spatial planning policies, especially around population numbers.
Because the PRS offers such easy access to housing, migrants are disproportionately
located in the sector, with particular housing markets facing large waves of migrants.
These tenants are hard to reach, so special methods should be used to consult with
them.
45
6. Conclusions
• Geographical gaps, particularly in cities with large student populations and in coastal
areas, where private renting is higher. Such an approach allows national and regional
resources to be targeted at those areas most likely at risk of change in the PRS. There
will undoubtedly be much local knowledge from a range of stakeholders, yet such rich
information is rarely collated in a systematic way.
• Local authority-level systems to monitor developments and trends in the PRS, to
ensure that they understand the changing market – these should also use a common
methodology to compare across regions. Some studies we have reviewed have
suggested such systems (eg ECOTEC and SURF, 2006), but many local authorities
require help developing the tools to monitor their local market on an ongoing basis.
• Updating old evidence, such as Crook (2002), Rhodes and Kemp (2002) and Rugg et
al (2000).
46
Allen C and Blandy S (2004) The future of city centre living: Implications for urban policy CRESR,
Sheffield Hallam University: Sheffield
Andrew M (2006) ‘Housing tenure choices by the young’ CML Housing Finance 07
ARLA (2007) The ARLA history of buy to let investment 2001 to 2007 ARLA: Amersham
Ball M (2004) The future of private renting in the UK: Social Market Foundation report into the
private rental sector Social Market Foundation: London
Ball M (2006) The revolution: 10 years on, assessment and prospect, Association of Residential
Letting Agents (ARLA)
Birch J (2007) ‘Diagnosis: market failure’ Roof May–June 2007 pp25–29
CLG (2007) Survey of English Housing Table S101 Trends in tenure CLG online (www.clg.gov.uk)
CML (2004) ‘Buy-to-let: Long term stability, or short term volatility?’ Market briefing special article
CML online (www.cml.org.uk) May 2004
CML (2006) Presentation at the CML annual conference, CML online (www.cml.org. uk)
5 December 2006
CML (2007) CML fortnightly newsletter 5, 20 March 2007
CRESR (2007) Gateway private rented sector study Centre for Regional Economic and Social
Research, Sheffield Hallam University: Sheffield
Crook ADH (2002) ‘Housing conditions in the private rented sector within a market framework’ in
Lowe and Hughes (eds.) The private rented sector in a new century Policy Press: Bristol
Crook ADH and Hughes JET (2001) ‘Market signals and disrepair in privately rented housing’
Journal of Property Research 18.1 pp21-50
CSR Partnership (2004) Terraced housing in Rochdale: Market drivers & implications CSR
Partnership: Birmingham
Davies P (2003) ‘What do we already know: Background document’ The magenta book
Government Social Researcher online (www.gsr.gov.uk)
DWP (2005) Landlords and agents in the private rented sector Local housing allowance
evaluation report 4 DWP: London
7. Bibliography
47
7. Bibliography
DWP (2006) Local housing allowance final evaluation: The survey evidence of landlords and
agents experience in the nine pathfinder areas Local housing allowance evaluation report 11 DWP:
London
ECOTEC (2007) The private rented sector in NewHeartlands: Final report (corrected) ECOTEC:
Birmingham
ECOTEC and SURF, University of Salford (2006) Dynamics of the private rented sector in Stoke-
on-Trent ECOTEC: Birmingham
Fox P and Unsworth R (2005) City Living in Leeds – 2005 KW Linfoot Plc and the University of
Leeds: Leeds
Gardiner J (2007) ‘Empty Promises’ Regeneration & Renewal, 31 August 2007
Gibb K and Nygaard C (2005) ‘The impact of buy to let residential investment on local housing
markets: Evidence from Glasgow, Scotland’ European Journal of Housing Policy 5.3 pp301-26
Green S, Hickman P, Hunter C and Whittle S (2007) Bridging NewcastleGateshead private
landlord survey: Executive summary Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield
Hallam University: Sheffield
Hickman P, Robinson D, Casey R, Green S and Powell R (2007) Understanding housing demand:
Learning from rising markets in Yorkshire and the Humber Chartered Institute of Housing/Joseph
Rowntree Foundation: Coventry/York
Holmans A (2005) Recent trends in numbers of first-time buyers: a review of recent evidence CML
Research: London
Hometrack (2006) ‘The future demand for private rented housing in the UK’ Housing Intelligence 3
summer 2006
Hometrack (2007) ‘Prospects for the buy to let market’ Hometrack BTL seminar 10 July 2007
Hughes J (1999) Happy returns: the individual investor as a source of new capital for rented
housing in a time of changing social welfare structures Tayler and Frances Ltd: London
Kelly J and Menton A (2007) ‘Residential mortgages: Borrowing for investment’ Quarterly Bulletin
2, Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland: Dublin
Kemp P (2004) Private renting in transition Chartered Institute of Housing: Coventry
Knight Frank Residential Research (2007) Central Nottingham Housing Market Analysis Knight
Frank: London
48
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
Knight-Markiegi A (2006) How ‘low demand’ affects the bottom end of the private rented sector:
Rent deposit schemes in three South Yorkshire towns MSc dissertation, Centre for Urban and
Regional Studies, University of Birmingham: Birmingham
London Development Research (2006) Who buys new market homes in London? The Greater
London Authority/London Development Agency: London
Mandicˇ S (2000) ‘Trends in Central East European rented sectors’ Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment 15.3, pp217-231
Meen G (2006) ‘Ten new propositions in UK housing macroeconomics: An overview of the first
years of the century’ conference paper, ENHR conference ‘Housing in an expanding Europe:
Theory, policy, participation and implementation’ Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 2006
Montezuma J (2006) ‘A survey of institutional investors’ attitudes and perceptions of residential
property: The Swiss, Dutch and Swedish cases’ Housing Studies 21.6 pp883-908
NHPAU (2007) Developing a target range for the supply of new homes in England NHPAU online
(www.communities.gov.uk)
Oakes C and McKee E (1997), The market for a new private rented sector Joseph Rowntree
Foundation: York
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003) English house condition survey 2001: Private
landlords survey ODPM: London
ODPM (2006) English house condition survey 2003: Private landlords survey ODPM: London
Pannell B and Heron J (2001) ‘Good bye to buy-to-let?’ Housing Finance 52, November 2001
pp18-25
Pendle Borough Council (2007) A survey of Local Landlords (Private Rented Sector) in East
Lancashire Pendle Borough Council Research and Policy Team: Nelson
Rhodes D (2006) The modern private rented sector Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ Chartered
Institute of Housing: York/Coventry
Rhodes D and Bevan M (2003) Private landlords and buy-to-let University of York: York
Rhodes D and Kemp P (2002) ‘Rents and returns in the residential lettings market’ in Lowe and
Hughes (eds.) The private rented sector in a new century Policy Press: Bristol
Rowlands R, Murie A and Tice A (2006) More than Tenure Mix: Developer and purchaser attitudes
to new housing estates Joseph Rowntree Foundation by the Chartered Institute of Housing:
Coventry
49
Sectionhead
Rugg J, Rhodes D and Jones A (2000) The nature and impact of student demand on housing
markets Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York
Savills Research (2007) The buy to let market in the South East Savills Research: London
Scanlon K and Whitehead C (2005) The profile and intentions of buy-to-let investors CML: London
Sprigings N (2007) National evaluation of housing market renewal pathfinders: Thematic paper
buy-to-let housing market in the HMR pathfinders Department for Communities and Local
Government: London
Tatch J (2007) ‘Affordability – are parents helping?’ Housing Finance 3
Thomas R (2006a) Presentation to the CML annual conference, CML, 5 December 2006
Thomas R (2006b) ‘The growth of buy-to-let’ Housing Finance 9, September 2006
Unsworth R (2007) City living in Leeds 2007 KW Linfoot, Morgans City Living and the University of
Leeds: Leeds
Wilcox S (2005) Affordability and the intermediate housing market: Local measures for all local
authority areas in Great Britain Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York
Wilcox S (2006) The geography of affordable and unaffordable housing (and the ability of younger
working households to become home owners) Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York
Wilcox S (2007) Can’t buy: can rent: The affordability of private housing in Great Britain –
summary report Hometrack: London
50
Search strategy
One reason a rapid evidence assessment is more thorough than a literature review is the use of a
robust search strategy. This should be transparent and explicit. Here are the various ways we
sourced evidence, including any keywords used:
• Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports (with various keywords used);
• Ingenta Connect (searched on “private rented sector” and “buy to let”);
• Google Scholar (searched on “buy to let”);
• IDOX (searched on “private renting”, “buy to let”);
• CML (annual statistics, research reports);
• ARLA;
• RICS;
• Hometrack;
• IPD;
• CLG and DWP publications;
• contact with all regional assemblies;
• contact with housing market renewal pathfinders;
• contact with selected city councils (Nottingham, Bristol, Leeds, Birmingham – chosen for
having large student populations and likely to have commissioned research);
• references from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit;
• references from Nigel Sprigings (2007);
• references from Adam Knight-Markiegi (2006);
• studies we already knew about; and
• methodologicalreferences(egCochraneCollection).
Annex 1: Search strategy
51
Buy-to-let literature review template
This is the template for completing the rapid evidence assessment of literature on the buy-to-let
housing market. It provides the framework for appraising the quality of the work as well as the
contents and conclusions of literature. Please complete one form for each text and each relevant
research question; so for a text that covers multiple questions you will have multiple sheets. There
are some more guidelines below to help complete this form.
Our research questions
Our primary research question
Secondary issues
Other research questions covered
Literature
Title
Author
Date published
Publisher and location/journal
Research aims/questions
Geographical scope
Interest in subject
Methodology
Limitations of study
Overall quality of study
Relevant key findings (page numbers for data/quotes)
Relevant recommendations (including further research)
To guide the completion of the form, we need to critically appraise each piece of literature on the
following basis:
• the research aims and questions that prompted the original study;
• the geographical scope of the material (eg national, regional, local);
• the interest in the subject (eg independent evaluator, industry representative, local authority,
private consultancy);
Annex 2: Review template
52
Rapid evidence assessment of the research literature on the buy-to-let housing market sector
• methodology (eg primary or secondary evidence, quantitative, qualitative, sample used (eg
who selected, how selected), actual methods (eg interviews, survey), discussion of
methodological weaknesses, etc;
• limitations of the study, such as:
– lack of explicit methodology;
– appropriateness of methods and statistics;
– low sample size and poor selection;
– low response rate;
– data is no corroborated or findings tested (eg not using different data types, not
triangulating findings);
– data is not broken down (eg only national level, no split by type of landlord);
– missing data;
– data is weighted, especially if not explained;
– overuse of secondary data;
– selection bias in terms of data presented (eg industry representatives only showing
positive results, campaigners only showing negative results);
– certain groups are not included in the study but should have been (eg landlords, tenants);
and
• the overall quality of the study (ranked high, medium or low), based on all of the above.
53
Annex 2: Review template
ECOTEC is an international provider of research, consulting and management services.
Our aim is to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. For more than twenty
years we have worked with clients in the public, private and third sectors across a wide
range of areas including:
Housing
Regeneration
Competitiveness
Employment and Labour Markets
Children, Young People and Families
Learning and Skills
Equality and Diversity
Priestley House
12-26 Albert Street
Birmingham
B4 7UD
United Kingdom
T 0121 616 3600
F 0121 616 3699
www.ecotec.com
National Housing and Planning Advice Unit
CB04, Ground Floor of Clerical Block
Segensworth Road, Titchfield
Fareham PO15 5RR
Printed in the UK on material containing no less that 75% post-consumer waste.
February 2008
© Crown Copyright, 2008
