Landlords tempted to trim their repairs budget are being warned that the saving could prove illusory. Research from property management firm Rushbrook estimates that poor maintenance could strip between £20,115 and £30,172 from the value of the average rental property in England, and close to £59,000 from a typical landlord-owned home in London.
The figures matter because they reframe maintenance as a capital question rather than a running cost. A leaking gutter or an unaddressed damp patch does not simply irritate a tenant; on the firm’s modelling, it eats directly into the equity that underpins a landlord’s return.
How the numbers stack up
Rushbrook’s analysis puts the average landlord-specific property value in England at £201,145. A 10 per cent fall in value caused by poor upkeep would cost £20,115, while a 15 per cent reduction would take the loss to £30,172.
London landlords have the most at stake. With the average landlord property in the capital valued at £390,625, the same 10 to 15 per cent hit equates to a loss of between £39,063 and £58,594.
The South East is not far behind. Based on a regional average landlord property value of £285,714, losses there could reach £42,857, according to the research.
Regional exposure from Cornwall to Newcastle
The South West follows with a potential loss of £34,286, then the East of England at £31,034 and the West Midlands at £28,696.
The exposure does not disappear in cheaper markets. The research puts the potential loss at £26,163 in the East Midlands, £22,959 in the North East, £21,226 in Yorkshire and the Humber and £21,196 in the North West.
In percentage terms the damage is identical everywhere; only the pound figures change. For investors with portfolios concentrated in the North, the point is that a 15 per cent haircut on a £140,000 flat is still a five-figure sum, and one that could have been avoided.
The false economy of deferred repairs
Roma Sharma, managing director of Rushbrook, said the figures expose the true cost for landlords who try to skimp on regular and proactive maintenance.
“Landlords have faced a considerable increase in the cost and complexity of operating a rental property in recent years and so it’s understandable that many will be looking closely at where they can reduce expenditure,” she said.
“However, there’s an important distinction between sensible cost management and creating a false economy, and property maintenance is one area where delaying expenditure can end up costing considerably more in the long run.
“A relatively minor issue that is identified and dealt with quickly can often be resolved efficiently, whereas allowing it to deteriorate can result in a much larger repair bill, disruption for the tenant and, over time, a deterioration in the overall condition and value of the property.”
Sharma urged landlords to treat maintenance as an essential way of protecting the performance of their investment.
What this means for investors
The research lands at a moment when the cost of neglect is rising on two fronts. The first is regulatory: the government’s guide to the Renters’ Rights Act confirms that a Decent Homes Standard and Awaab’s Law will apply to the private rented sector, setting legal timeframes for dealing with hazards such as damp and mould. A repair that was once discretionary is becoming enforceable, which is why keeping a lifecycle evidence trail of inspections is now a core landlord discipline.
The second is the market. With landlords continuing to sell up and buyers scrutinising condition ever more closely, a tired property will be marked down at exactly the moment its owner wants to exit. Add the looming requirement for rental homes to reach EPC C by 2030 and the gap between a well-kept asset and a neglected one only widens.
Two cautions apply. Rushbrook has not published the underlying data behind its regional property values, and the 10 to 15 per cent depreciation range is a modelled assumption rather than a measured outcome, so the pound figures are illustrative rather than forensic. Nor does the research quantify what proactive maintenance costs, which is the other half of any sensible calculation.
Even so, the direction of the argument is hard to dispute. A landlord who saves £2,000 a year by deferring repairs and then loses £30,000 at sale has not managed costs; they have simply moved the bill to a later date and added interest. As the idea of buy-to-let as a passive income continues to lose credibility, the maintenance line in the budget looks less like an expense and more like insurance.
