If you are a private landlord in England weighing up whether buy-to-let still makes financial sense after the Renters' Rights Act, this piece covers the honest investment case for residential property in 2026, what the Act actually changes about returns and risk, why Birmingham and the Midlands remain among the strongest markets in the country, and what separates the landlords who will do well under the new regime from those who will not.

The question everyone is asking

Since the Renters' Rights Act passed, barely a week goes by without a landlord asking me some version of the same question. Is it still worth it? With Section 21 gone, with the tax environment what it is, with compliance requirements going in one direction, should I be thinking about selling up? It is a fair question and it deserves a straight answer rather than a reassuring non-answer.

So here is my honest view.

Buy-to-let still makes sense in 2026. But not for everyone, not in every location, and not with every approach to management. The conditions under which it makes sense have narrowed. The landlords who will do well are a more specific group than they were ten years ago. And the ones who are asking the question most urgently are often the ones who have the most to think about.

What has actually changed?

It is worth being precise about this, because the narrative around buy-to-let in 2026 tends toward the catastrophic in ways that do not reflect the actual numbers. The Renters' Rights Act changes the mechanics of managing a tenancy. It removes Section 21, requires Section 8 for all possession claims, mandates the Section 13 process for rent increases, and introduces a set of compliance requirements that carry real consequences if they are not met. Those are meaningful changes. They increase the administrative burden on landlords and raise the cost of getting things wrong. What the Act does not do is fundamentally alter the economics of a well-located, well-managed residential investment. Rental demand has not decreased. Supply has not increased. The fundamental imbalance between the number of people who need to rent and the number of properties available to rent has not been resolved by legislation, and it will not be resolved by the exit of a portion of smaller landlords from the market. If anything, as I will come to, reduced supply supports the rental income case over the medium term.

The changes that have hit landlord returns hardest over the past decade have not been legislative.

They have been fiscal. The phased removal of mortgage interest tax relief, the additional stamp duty surcharge on second properties, and the change to capital gains tax treatment have all reduced net returns for higher-rate taxpaying landlords in ways that the Renters' Rights Act does not come close to matching. If you adjusted to those changes and your numbers still worked, the Act is unlikely to tip the balance. If your numbers were already marginal before the Act, then the Act is one more pressure in a list of pressures, and the question of whether to continue is worth examining carefully. But the Act is not what made them marginal.

The supply and demand reality

Here is something I say to landlords who are considering selling, and I think it is worth saying clearly. Some landlords will exit the market as a result of the Renters' Rights Act. Some already have, anticipating it. With rental supply already constrained across most of England, particularly in cities like Birmingham where demand from a young, growing renter population consistently outpaces available stock, fewer rental properties in the market means stronger competition for those that remain. For tenants, that is not good news. I am not presenting it as good news. But for investors assessing the medium-term rental income case, reduced supply in a high-demand market is a factor that works in their favour. Vacancy rates fall. Letting periods shorten. The negotiating position shifts toward landlords who have well-presented, well-managed properties in the right locations.

This is not a reason to be complacent.

It is a reason to understand that the landlords who exit the market are largely not the ones with good properties in strong locations. They are the ones with marginal properties, poor management practices, or an appetite for regulatory risk that the new regime no longer accommodates. The gap between well-managed and poorly-managed landlords, in terms of both returns and risk, is about to widen considerably.

Why Birmingham specifically?

I focus a lot of my thinking on Birmingham and the wider Midlands, because that is where most of my work is and because the city makes a consistently strong case for residential investment that the national narrative sometimes obscures. Birmingham has the youngest major city population in Europe outside of Ankara. Around 40% of the population is under 25. The city's economy, while not without its challenges, is diversifying in ways that generate sustained professional renter demand. Goldman Sachs doubling its Birmingham workforce. The BBC relocating to Digbeth. HSBC's UK headquarters in Centenary Square. These are not marginal signals. They are structural drivers of the kind of employed, professional tenant demand that landlords want. Rental yields in Birmingham consistently run ahead of many comparable UK cities. Gross yields of 5% to 7% are achievable across a range of property types and price points. Average property prices remain significantly below Manchester, Bristol, and London equivalents, which means entry costs are lower and the yield case is stronger from the start. The city's regeneration story, particularly in areas like Digbeth, Eastside, and the wider city centre fringe, continues to develop. These are not speculative emerging locations. They are areas where infrastructure investment, occupier demand, and demographic change are all moving in the same direction, and where the property market has not yet fully priced in what is coming. For investors with a medium to long-term horizon, buying in Birmingham in 2026 and managing the asset properly through the new regulatory environment is a more straightforward case than it might feel from the outside right now.

What the numbers need to look like

I am not going to pretend there is a single set of numbers that makes buy-to-let work universally. The case depends on your tax position, your financing structure, your entry price, and your management costs. What I can say is that the fundamental test has not changed: the rental income needs to comfortably cover the costs of holding the asset, with enough margin to absorb voids, maintenance, and the occasional unexpected expense, while the capital position over time either holds or improves. For landlords with mortgage debt, the critical question is the relationship between your mortgage rate and your rental yield. At current rates, properties purchased with significant leverage at peak prices in recent years may be under pressure. Properties purchased earlier, with lower debt levels or at lower prices, are likely in a healthier position. The Act does not change that equation. Financing does. For cash buyers, the yield case across Birmingham and the Midlands remains strong relative to many alternative asset classes. Gross yields of 6% or above, on an asset with realistic prospects for capital growth over a ten-year period, is a position many investors in other asset classes would be happy with.

The management question

The honest answer to whether buy-to-let still makes sense in 2026 is inseparable from the management question. A residential investment managed badly is not the same asset as a residential investment managed well. Under the old regime, poor management created risks that were sometimes navigable. Under the new regime, those same risks are more expensive, more time-consuming, and harder to escape from. Landlords who manage their own portfolios and who have been doing so properly, with clean compliance records, documented processes, and a professional approach to tenant relationships, are well placed. The additional requirements of the Renters' Rights Act are incremental for them. They are not transformative. Landlords who have been managing informally, who are not certain about the compliance status of their portfolio, or who are finding the new requirements genuinely daunting, face a different question. Not necessarily whether to sell, but whether continuing to self-manage is the right approach. There is a version of this calculation where professional management, with the compliance infrastructure and processes that come with it, makes more sense than carrying the risk personally. That is a conversation worth having. Not because the alternative is selling, but because the asset itself does not have to be the problem. How it is managed might be.

My honest view

Buy-to-let in 2026 is not the same proposition it was in 2010 or even 2016. The tax environment is tighter, the regulatory requirements are higher, and the operational demands are greater. Anyone telling you otherwise is not giving you a straight picture. But the fundamental case for well-located residential property, professionally managed, in a city with genuine structural demand, holds. It held through the financial crisis, through the pandemic, through the tax changes of the past decade, and through the rate cycle of 2022 and 2023. The Renters' Rights Act is a significant piece of legislation. It is not a reason to abandon an asset class that, managed properly, continues to deliver. The landlords who will look back at 2026 and be glad they stayed will be the ones who took the compliance requirements seriously, managed their portfolios professionally, and invested in locations where demand is structural rather than speculative. Birmingham ticks those boxes. The fundamentals are there. What matters now is what you do with them.   Renters Rights Act 2026: Everything Landlords Need To Know

FAQs

Does buy-to-let still make sense after the Renters' Rights Act?

Yes, with the right approach. The Act changes the mechanics of managing a tenancy and raises the cost of getting things wrong. It does not change the fundamental economics of a well-located, well-managed residential investment in a high-demand market. Landlords with clean compliance records and professionally managed portfolios are well placed.

How does the Renters' Rights Act affect landlord returns?

The Act increases the administrative burden on landlords and raises the consequences of compliance failures. It does not directly reduce rental income or capital values. The tax changes of the past decade, including the phased removal of mortgage interest relief and the additional stamp duty surcharge, have had a greater impact on net returns than the Act itself.

Is Birmingham a good place to invest in property in 2026?

Birmingham remains one of the strongest residential investment markets in the UK. It has the youngest major city population in Europe outside of Ankara, sustained professional renter demand driven by major employer investment, gross yields consistently running at 5% to 7%, and average property prices significantly below comparable UK cities. The medium to long-term case is strong.

What rental yield should landlords expect in Birmingham?

Gross yields of 5% to 7% are achievable across a range of property types and locations in Birmingham, with some areas and property types reaching above that range. Net yields depend on financing costs, management fees, void periods, and maintenance. The entry cost advantage over cities like Manchester, Bristol, and London supports the yield case from the outset.

Will landlords leaving the market affect rents?

Reduced supply in a high-demand market tends to support rents over the medium term. With rental supply already constrained across Birmingham and the wider Midlands, the exit of a portion of smaller landlords is likely to reduce vacancy rates and increase competition for available properties. This is not comfortable for tenants but is a realistic factor for investors to understand.

Should landlords sell their properties because of the Renters' Rights Act?

Not necessarily. The Act is one factor in a broader assessment that depends on individual tax position, financing structure, property location, and management approach. For landlords with marginal numbers before the Act, it is worth examining carefully. For landlords with well-located, well-managed assets, the Act is an operational challenge rather than a fundamental threat to the investment case.

Is self-managing a rental property still viable in 2026?

For landlords with the time, knowledge, and systems to manage properly, yes. For landlords who are finding the new compliance requirements difficult to navigate, or who are not confident about the status of their portfolio, professional management is worth considering. The question is not whether the asset is viable, but whether the approach to managing it is.

What makes a good buy-to-let investment in 2026?

Strong structural rental demand, a price point that delivers a yield comfortably above financing costs, realistic prospects for capital growth over a medium to long-term horizon, and a property that can be managed professionally within the requirements of the new regulatory environment. Location remains the primary driver of all three.

Contact Miller Rose

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.