The Impact of Section 24 on buy-to-let landlords in England

In the summer budget of 2015, Chancellor George Osbourne, announced his intention to limit the ability of landlords to claim tax relief on finance costs including mortgage fees and mortgage interest payments. Despite the significance of Section 24, it is not clear how landlords have been impacted or of their future intentions. The English PRS is in a state of flux and this research is important to identify and address the challenges.

The impact of Section 24 on buy-to-let landlords.jpg

The Private Rented Sector (PRS) plays an important role in the English housing system, around 19% of households call the sector home (UK Government, 2023a). Over half (57%) of landlords who make up the sector fund their PRS investments via Buy-to-Let (BTL) mortgages (MHCLG, 2022). As such, BTL investors are critical to the success of the sector.

However, the investment environment has become challenging. Inflation increased due to the cost-of-living crisis, causing landlord business costs to spiral. Changes in the legislative and tax burden have also fundamentally altered the risk-return profile. 

A series of base rate rises introduced to combat inflation, have led to significant increases in BTL mortgage interest rates. Plus, the phased removal of mortgage interest rate relief under Section 24 of the Finance (No2) Act 2015 (Section 24), resulted in many landlords paying more tax. 

Landlord perception of section 24

Landlords overwhelmingly described Section 24 as unfair. Many landlords equated the removal of interest rate relief with being taxed on turnover and not profit. 

This is not technically correct, Section 24 allows some relief at the basic rate, additionally, there is a range of non-finance costs that landlords can offset against tax. However, as interest repayments generally make up a sizeable proportion of a landlord’s outgoings, it is not difficult to understand why this view persists. 

Download the full report