Some 22% of landlords hold at least one rental property within a limited company, reflecting the growing popularity of operating as a company.
One in three landlords are mixed-status, meaning they have part of their portfolio in a limited company, reflecting how conditions have changed.
Since 2020 individual landlords haven’t been able to deduct their mortgage interest as a business expense, instead only having access to a 20% tax credit, which has led to more using the limited company structure.
Mark Long, founder and director of Pegasus Insight, which conducted the poll, said: “Landlords are operating in a very different environment from that of a decade ago. With tax rules continuing to tighten and compliance demands rising, many now see incorporation as the most robust long-term way to run a lettings business.
“But incorporation is not a simple win. It carries costs, introduces additional administrative responsibilities, and, crucially, needs to be considered carefully with a qualified tax adviser. Mortgage brokers cannot and should not provide tax advice, and landlords need specialist guidance before making structural changes to their business.”
The average number of properties held in a limited company structure has been growing over the past five years, from 6.3 in Q1 2020 to 10.5 in Q3 2025, while the average total mixed-status portfolio size has remained broadly stable over the same period at around 15 properties.
Long added: “The Chancellor’s decision in the recent Budget to introduce new higher ‘property’ tax bands of 22%, 42% and 47% for landlords who hold property in their own names from April 2027 is only likely to accelerate the move towards company structures.
“But it also risks penalising the very people who have made up the backbone of the PRS for around 30 years: smaller, long-standing landlords who have quietly provided good-quality homes without the resources or scale to absorb repeated policy shocks.
“Incorporation may well be the right answer for some, but government should be mindful that continually increasing the burden on individual landlords risks pushing more of them out of the sector entirely, at a time when the country can least afford to lose rental supply.”