It is often the case with housing and mortgage market data that the headline figure attracts most of the attention, while some of the more interesting numbers sit further down the page, and I suspect that may be the case with the latest Hamptons research on buy-to-let limited company ownership.
The research suggests the number of new buy-to-let companies being formed may have peaked, with incorporations during the first eight months of 2026 down 8% compared with the same period last year.
That will inevitably generate headlines about a slowdown in incorporation, but I am not sure we should be particularly surprised, nor should we necessarily interpret it as a negative sign for the private rental sector (PRS).
A DECADE OF CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP
We have now had a decade since changes to the tax treatment of mortgage interest began to alter the calculations for landlords holding properties personally, and Hamptons’ previous research showed 66,587 new buy-to-let companies were established during 2025 alone.
By the end of last year there were 443,272 buy-to-let companies registered at Companies House, almost five times the number in 2016, while Hamptons has previously estimated that around three-quarters of new buy-to-let purchases are now made through limited companies.
There was always going to come a point when the number of new incorporations began to slow because many established landlords have already created the companies they need, and the number of completely new landlords entering the sector was unlikely to replace that initial wave of company creation indefinitely.
Indeed, one landlord might have established a company five years ago and since bought another 10 properties through it, without a single additional company appearing in the incorporation figures.
LOOK AT WHAT IS MOVING INTO THOSE COMPANIES
This is why another figure within the latest Hamptons research caught my attention, because of the 81,800 properties that went into buy-to-let limited companies in England and Wales during 2025, 43,400 – or 53% – were properties transferred from landlords’ personal ownership.
That feels significant because transferring an existing property into a limited company is not simply a paper exercise, and landlords can face considerable upfront costs, including of course sizeable Stamp Duty payments and potentially Capital Gains Tax, depending on their circumstances.
Hamptons estimates the average Stamp Duty bill on such a transfer at around £28,000, based on an average property value of £380k, which underlines the scale of the financial decision being made, and the money that has been flowing to HM Treasury as a result.
And it certainly presents a very different picture to one of the buy-to-let narratives that has been present over that time period. For years there has been an assumption these additional (and sizeable) costs would prevent all but a relatively small number of landlords from considering such a move, yet these figures suggest tens of thousands have decided the longer-term case for doing so is strong enough to warrant paying those costs.
A REMORTGAGE CONVERSATION WORTH HAVING
This should be particularly interesting to advisers because there may be clients sitting within existing books who own some properties personally, even though more recent additions to their portfolios have been purchased through limited companies.
The obvious time to have a conversation with those clients is ahead of a remortgage, when the landlord and adviser are already reviewing the financing of that property and considering what the next few years might look like.
It may be that incorporation is completely unsuitable for that particular landlord, and advisers clearly need to ensure clients seek suitable tax and legal advice because individual circumstances will determine whether such a move makes financial sense.
However, the adviser can start the conversation, explain the mortgage options available and ensure the client understands that retaining the property in personal ownership is not necessarily the only route open to them.
For some landlords with sufficient equity, there may also be the potential to consider the costs involved within their wider refinancing requirements, subject of course to lender criteria and the individual circumstances involved.
DO NOT ASSUME LANDLORDS WILL SAY NO
This is perhaps the biggest message I would take from these figures, because advisers should not automatically assume a landlord will dismiss incorporation simply because there are significant upfront costs involved.
The data suggests otherwise; that plenty of landlords have been prepared to accept those costs because they believe the longer-term benefits make sense for them, and that should encourage advisers to identify personally-held properties within portfolio landlord client banks, particularly where mortgage deals are approaching maturity.
It also tells us something about the landlords making these decisions because paying significant sums to restructure the ownership of existing properties does not suggest someone planning their exit from buy-to-let in the short term.
So, while falling incorporation numbers might generate the headlines, the more interesting story for advisers could be what established landlords are doing with the companies they already have, and whether clients with personally-held properties should at least be having the same conversation.
