Short Let or Long Let? A Landlord’s Guide to Maximising Returns

The question we are most often asked by landlords in prime London is a simple one: will I do better on short lets or long lets? The honest answer is that it depends — and the variables that matter most are often not the ones landlords expect.

Short lets typically generate higher gross income than long lets for comparable properties. For a well-presented three-bedroom house in Primrose Hill, the difference can be substantial. But gross income is not net income: short lets incur higher management costs, more frequent changeover expenses, and greater wear and tear.

Long lets offer simplicity and predictability. A good tenant on a twelve-month tenancy, managed by a professional agency, requires relatively little landlord input. The income may be lower, but the outgoings are considerably more controllable.

The decision is also affected by regulation. The 90-night cap applies to certain short let properties in London, though many properties and tenancy arrangements fall outside its scope. Anyone considering a move into the short let market should understand the regulatory position for their specific property before proceeding.

Finally, consider your own circumstances. If you travel frequently and want the flexibility to use the property yourself, short lets may suit you. If you want to step back entirely and let the asset work for you passively, a long let with full management is often the better fit.

Our lettings team advises on both short and long lets across prime London. We would be happy to run through the numbers for your specific property — please get in touch.