By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Landlords ‘can reap the benefits’ by catering for older tenants and families

Buy-to-let landlords could benefit financially by catering their offerings towards the growing older renter and family tenant demographics, according to the Tenant Shop. 

Various studies and research show that renting is now the choice of tenure for a wider cross-section of the population, rather than just for young professionals saving to buy their first property. 

Hamptons International recently reported that the number of older renters has risen by 61% since 2012, with around a third of these being retirees.


Hamptons International says that many retirees are choosing to swap homeownership to beat high levels of stamp duty, free up cash to help family members onto the property ladder and turn their home into a source of income.

Hamptons International’s findings are supported by the most recent English Housing Survey (EHS), the proportion of private renters aged 55-64 was 9% in 2017-18, up from 5% ten years previously.

Meanwhile, the previous year's EHS documented a 1.8 million rise in the number of family tenants over a decade.

Glenn Seddington, managing director of Tenant Shop, said: "More people from all demographics are choosing to live in the PRS for the long-term. This is due to a number of reasons, including the flexibility and affordability it offers. 

"This development has provided agents and landlords with the chance to work with new age groups and those that cater to older tenants and family renters within their service offering can reap the benefits.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    These are just the kind of tenants I like, they pay the rent in full and on time, they look after the property and are grateful for a home.

  • icon

    I think this a rather rose tinted view of what's actually happening and doubt many retirees actually choose to move into renting from home ownership. I suspect many of the retirees who have found themselves renting were already doing so and have no other option. If it's about freeing up cash why not downsize to a one bed flat or similar? I personally think renting in retirement is a somewhat unenviable position to be in.

  • icon
    • 12 September 2019 09:59 AM

    I believe it will be found that it is the richer SE tenant has become so due to wishing to avoid having assets that can be robbed from them by Councils to pay for care home fees.
    Essentially they are doing a Ronnie Corbett.
    He sold his home which had lots of equity in it.
    He then dispersed his tax free income from the sale proceeds amongst his family.
    He then rented for the rest of his life leaving no significant assets behind.
    Had he needed a care home the Council would not have been able to rob the asset value of his former Residential property.
    There will be many homeowners that will be doing this and they need to sell their home well before there might be any inkling of a need for a care home otherwise the Council will maintain that 'intentional deprivation' of assets has occurred and won't pay care home fees that they have to pay for all the feckless layabouts who have been council tenants etc and have no assets.
    Why should those who have striven be forced to support the feckless?
    It is mostly self-funders who are forced to subsidise SE care homes where council payments are insufficient to keep the care home viable.
    So when you think about the feckless are supported all their lives by homeowners.
    It really pays not to have assets in later years in your name.
    Becoming a tenant is a great way to avoid having asset value robbed from you by the Council.
    The awkward thing is timing the sale of assets to ensure the Council cannot accuse you of 'intentional deprivation'.
    I believe selling at least 5 years before any care home situation might be identified is sufficient to avoid such intentional deprivation accusations.
    So it could well be that demand by these senior citizen tenants becomes more so as they seek to avoid being robbed by the Council for care home fees.
    As has been mentioned such tenants usually make for excellent tenants.
    Rarely will they wish to move so potentially such tenants could be with you until they are carted off to a care home!
    I would suggest such tenants would be far superior to other sorts of tenants.
    Most of these tenants will have sold their PPR and 'spent' all their assets.
    I'm sure as well as funding the rent from their alleged income there will be payments that might be made directly to the LL in cash from relatives to fund the total rent!!
    Where those relatives obtained the monies from who knows and there will be no record of cash payments made by relatives etc to LL!!
    Of course there is the current Labour risk of RTB so not sure how LL will behave with that risk taking into account that RTB will only work with single households.
    Would a senior citizen be able to obtain a mortgage!?
    Would their potential heirs fund a RTB proposition?

  • icon

    I am sure that the numbers are correct but agree with Barry James that this maybe a 'rose tinted' view. I would added that I deal a lot with life tenancies and have seen that as people get to retirement that with the interest only mortgages that they have not made other arrangements to pay them off. I see them looking at life tenancies as a option for a future secure home and I wonder if some in this position are now also turning to the rental market.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up