Landlords Planning to Refinance Face Almost Three Mortgage Decisions Each

For landlords preparing to refinance, the next year may involve several mortgage decisions within the same rental business. Paragon Bank’s latest research puts the average at 2.9 loans among those planning a remortgage or product transfer.

The findings, published on 30 October, show that 38% of landlords with buy-to-let mortgages intend to refinance or change products over the next 12 months. The research was conducted by Pegasus Insight among nearly 600 landlords.

That makes the sequence of decisions worth examining. A new deal on one property may look manageable in isolation. Two further renewals, a refurbishment bill and a planned sale can change the picture for the owner’s cash flow.

Willow’s reading of the research is that the next refinancing conversation should begin with the landlord’s wider schedule. Selecting the first replacement mortgage is only one part of that exercise.

The important figure is the number of loans per landlord

The 38% finding concerns respondents who have mortgages. It is not a claim that the same proportion of all landlords will change lender, and the research records intentions rather than completed transactions.

A product transfer means selecting a replacement product with the existing lender. That option sits alongside an external remortgage in the survey, so the findings should not be treated as a forecast of new business flowing entirely to other banks.

The average of 2.9 loans also says nothing about the size of the typical landlord’s whole portfolio. Some may be reviewing only part of their borrowing. Others may have more renewals concentrated within the year.

What it does suggest is a series of connected decisions for many respondents. Fees, cash contributions and changes in monthly payments can accumulate even when the individual applications are handled separately.

Three renewal dates can draw on the same cash reserve

Consider an illustrative landlord with six rental properties and three interest-only mortgages whose fixed rates end next year. The balances are £200,000, £250,000 and £300,000, with deal expiries in February, May and September.

The properties may have different lenders, rents and maintenance requirements. The landlord nevertheless needs to fund the combined consequences of the decisions from available business and personal resources.

If each replacement rate were one percentage point higher, the eventual increase in interest would be £7,500 a year, or £625 a month once all three changes had taken effect.

This is a sensitivity calculation, not a prediction of rates or the cost of an available product. It excludes fees and assumes no change in borrowing. The impact builds as each loan renews, rather than arriving in full at the start of the year.

Now add a planned repair to a fourth property. Spending the available reserve on reducing the first loan could leave less flexibility when the later deals end. That possibility should be visible before the first commitment is made.

One application can still bring the wider portfolio into view

For larger landlords, the connection between properties can extend to underwriting. The PRA’s buy-to-let standards identify borrowers with four or more mortgaged buy-to-let properties as portfolio landlords and expect a specialist approach to assessing them.

That assessment can include the wider borrowing, assets, liabilities and expected cash flows. A landlord refinancing one property may therefore need to explain more than the rent and mortgage attached to that address.

Current Accord criteria, for example, require details of applications being processed with other lenders as part of a portfolio submission. This illustrates why overlapping refinancing decisions need to be recorded consistently.

A schedule that shows an old balance on one application and an intended higher balance on another can create an incomplete picture. The adviser needs to know which transactions are proposed, which have offers and which have completed.

The same applies to rental income. Existing rent, a letting agent’s estimate and an anticipated increase are different pieces of evidence. Keeping those distinctions clear helps establish what borrowing can actually be supported.

A shared review can produce different answers for each property

Our recent coverage of Suffolk’s introduction of income top-slicing examined an additional affordability route for eligible landlords. Paragon’s survey raises a separate question: how should the owner coordinate several upcoming decisions?

There may be no reason to move every mortgage. The existing lender’s product transfer could suit one property, while another warrants an external remortgage because of its pricing, borrowing requirement or property characteristics.

A third property might be marked for sale. That intention changes the relevance of early repayment charges and the period over which fees should be assessed. The cheapest headline rate can be a poor fit if the borrowing will be repaid sooner than expected.

Equally, bringing every renewal onto one date is not automatically an improvement. It could require early repayment charges now and create another concentration of decisions later. The benefit of reviewing together is understanding the interaction between the loans.

Paragon already offers a route for larger groups of properties

The bank’s multi-property proposition allows applications covering four to 99 properties. Different products can be selected, and the properties can complete at separate times.

Those features are relevant where several transactions need coordinating, but the proposition is established. Paragon’s launch announcement dates from November 2025. The fresh development is the research into landlords’ refinancing plans.

The minimum also matters. A landlord reviewing three mortgages does not automatically qualify for a four-property application. The survey average should not be used to imply eligibility for a particular lending arrangement.

For a suitable larger case, grouping applications may reduce repeated administration. The comparison still needs to address each loan’s pricing, timing and terms. Administrative convenience alone does not establish that the borrowing is the best fit.

Available equity needs a defined purpose

A wider review can identify a future funding requirement before it becomes urgent. A landlord might be planning improvements, retaining money for repairs or considering another purchase. Those plans can change how much cash should remain available after refinancing.

However, property value and spendable cash are different things. Raising additional borrowing depends on the lender accepting the purpose, the security and the affordability of the resulting debt.

In the illustrative portfolio, releasing money from one property to improve another would increase the balance secured against the first. The cash-flow assessment needs to include that additional interest, any fees and the period before the work produces a benefit.

There should also be a comparison with using existing cash or completing the work in stages. Refinancing is a decision point at which to assess a project, rather than a reason on its own to increase leverage.

Where properties are owned through different companies or a mixture of personal and company ownership, the borrower and intended use of funds need to be identified clearly. Any movement of money between those owners needs appropriate accounting and legal advice.

The next conversation should cover the coming year

The practical starting point is one current schedule of the properties and loans, with each lender, balance, repayment basis, rate, deal end date and early repayment terms. Rents, likely costs, ownership and intended sales or improvements belong alongside it.

The end of a fixed rate should be distinguished from final loan maturity. An interest-only mortgage reaching its final term requires a plan for repaying the capital, which is a different issue from arranging the next interest rate.

From there, the review can identify the earliest decisions, establish what evidence is missing and compare the cost of the proposed borrowing across the year. Forecasts should show when fees fall due and when each payment changes.

A useful outcome is a clear sequence: which loans require attention first, which can remain in place and which decisions depend on a sale, valuation or completed work. That gives the landlord a basis for acting as the year unfolds.

For owners working with an accountant or managing agent, that shared timetable can also connect mortgage decisions with expected repair bills, tenancy changes and cash needed elsewhere in the business.

Paragon’s findings support that approach without establishing that every landlord needs a new lender or additional debt. For owners with several deals ending, the commercial issue is how those decisions fit together and what they leave available for the rest of the portfolio.