Category Archives: Investment

Roundtable discussion: A collaborative and child-centred approach to children’s social care

In April 2025, Christie & Co, Compass Carter Osborne, and GK Strategy hosted a female-led roundtable discussion on the challenges in the children’s social care sector across England and Wales. Here are the key takeaways.

For a roundtable event held in April 2025, hosts Hannah Haines (Head of Healthcare Consultancy, Christie & Co), Michâela Deasy (Head of External Communications, Compass Carter Osborne) and Lizzie Wills (Senior Partner & Head of Private Equity, GK Strategy) were joined by some of the biggest female names in the UK children’s social care sector.

The roundtable brought together operators, lawyers, investors, and sector experts, all of whom share a passion for quality healthcare and for driving an increased awareness of the challenges faced by operators across the country.

Below are some of the key highlights from the discussion.

THE INTRODUCTION OF PROFIT-CAPPING IN CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE SECTOR

Overview

Ahead of last year’s election, Labour pledged to reform the children’s social care system to improve the outcomes of looked-after children and those in care, and to address the funding crisis in the system following years of local authority funding pressures.

As part of the King’s Speech in July 2024, the government announced its plans to introduce the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which formed part of its legislative programme of over 40 new bills. One of the most controversial elements of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was announced the following November; the ability of the government to intervene directly in the market to introduce a profit cap on providers.

Concerns about excess profit-making in the children’s social care sector are not new, and the sector has historically done a good job at engaging with the government about why the fees charged by the independent and private sectors are typically higher than those provided by local authorities. This includes the complexity of the placements provided, with the private and independent sector providing a higher proportion of placements for children with highly complex needs, often where they need additional therapeutic support, or one-to-one care. The private sector also takes a higher number of children who have already experienced several placement breakdowns in local authority provision. The ability of the sector to be able to make a level of profit allows it to reinvest in meeting quality standards, hiring and training staff, and delivering new settings, often at the request of local authorities who are struggling with high levels of demand.

The Government has been clear that it does not intend to introduce a profit cap immediately and will only do so if its broader package of measures is unsuccessful in tackling what it sees as ‘unacceptable profiteering’ and rebalancing the market. There will also be a detailed public consultation before anything is implemented, including discussions specifically with local authorities and providers.

If the profit cap is implemented in the future, providers will be required to submit an annual financial return to the government to enable their profit levels to be assessed. Again, details are limited in terms of what information will be included in these returns. Details will also be subject to consultation with final plans set out at a later date. Should enforcement action need to be taken against a provider, this will be in the form of fines, the maximum amounts of which are expected to be set out in the subsequent secondary legislation.

Views from around the room: What will profit capping mean for the sector?

The Government might say it’s not against profit making, just against ‘profiteering,’ and that the steps it is taking are necessary to address the latter. The consensus is that the government’s approach to having a profit cap as a backstop in the new legislation will be a useful tactic to encourage providers to reinvest their profits into delivering better outcomes for children and young people, despite the potential for causing short term uncertainty.

It might be comforting for providers to know that, if the Government does implement a profit cap, it is expected to take several years to go from ambition to delivery, given the complexities involved. Significant parts of the mechanism will need to be set out in secondary legislation, and many of the details that are yet to be ironed out will be controversial, including how profit will be determined for the cap, and if it will be per placement, per business or per setting (or indeed based on some other metric).

Banks are watching the sector closely, but invested funds (especially impact funds) have a continued interest. Investors that are likely to do well are those that are reinvesting profits back into the UK healthcare infrastructure. However, smaller organisations may struggle to scale due to dampened investor interest, raising questions about how they can demonstrate ROI to investors and build an investment case.

In its 2022 report on children’s social care in the UK, the CMA acknowledged that comparing costs in the sector was complicated by differences in the needs of children placed in different settings and variations in how costs are calculated and reported. Rather than focusing on profit, which loses sight of the child, participants at the roundtable agreed it should be based on the outcomes and progression of the child. It should be a partnership, with everyone working together.

This was echoed around the room, alongside the challenges in measuring outcomes using such methods as the BERRY approach which matches needs against costs. Every looked-after child undergoes reviews to ensure outcomes are measured. A universal framework for evaluating providers based on outcomes rather than profit was seen as a potential solution that government should consider. The sector is well placed to advise the government on how approaches to date have worked, and how they could be refined in future.

We have already seen changes in Wales through its Eliminate Agenda, whereby it became the first nation in the UK to legislate to prevent profit-making by private companies in relation to children’s residential and foster care services by 2030. The Health and Social Care (Wales) Act 2025 received Royal Assent in March 2025 and mandates that children’s residential and foster care services be provided exclusively by local authorities, charities, or not-for-profit organisations.

Wales can serve as a case study for England. The sector in Wales is very prescriptive about what can and can’t be done by providers. The Welsh Government is now considering the role cooperatives could play in the delivery of services and they’ve pushed back the final stage in the roll-out of the plan by three years (to 2030) A lot of what is happening is political and their agenda is quite clear, so England would be wise to keep a watchful eye on what is happening over the border.

What action should be taken?

The consensus around the table was that we need to evidence the positive outcomes the private and independent sector is delivering for children and young people, to counter negative perceptions around profit-making. There was agreement that the sector has historically not been sufficiently vocal in making this case, and demonstrating the excellent outcomes it supports across a group of vulnerable individuals and their families.
The focus should be on positive outcomes for children, not profits – so providers, parents, the government, and the media all need to work together to lift up the sector and highlight the amazing work that it does for each child, keeping in mind that the outcomes for each will be different.
There is a continuing lack of constructive dialogue between some Local Authorities and operators throughout the health and social care space. The sector must focus on demonstrating positive outcomes and maintaining strong relationships with local authorities to navigate the ongoing political changes.
Any new policy must be outcomes-focused, fit for purpose, workable in practice and designed and implemented after full consultation with the sector.

INVESTMENT IN THE SECTOR AND ONGOING COMMUNICATION ISSUES IMPACTING PROGRESSION

Views from around the room: What could the children’s services sector be doing to improve communications between the Government and operators?

The landscape of children’s services is marked by a myriad of challenges and opportunities, particularly in the context of collaboration, funding, and policy implementation. Despite numerous operators striving to collaborate and communicate effectively, the sector is often met with negativity, largely due to underfunded government spending across all areas.

A significant issue is the lack of focus on the child. There is insufficient engagement from government with the private sector, and the narrative needs to shift to place the child at the centre of all decisions. When the child’s needs are prioritised, quality naturally follows. However, there is an imbalance as each child and business is different, and policies are often rushed through without adequate consultation with operators.

An immediate concern is the sustainability of providers amidst declining fostering rates and increasing care needs. Many smaller businesses are at risk of not surviving due to these pressures. Perceptions that mainstream education settings continue to struggle to support those with lower-end spectrum needs is driving an increasing number of parents who feel they are left with no other option but to seek Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and external support, resulting in an increasing demand for specialist support on the lower end of the scale. The government’s current policy agenda around mainstreaming and inclusivity for children with less complex SEND is an attempt to address the ‘drift’ towards specialist schools.

It was also highlighted that, amidst funding challenges, local authorities are focusing on immediate budgets rather than long-term savings and the positive impact on the child that could be achieved through early intervention. The debate around profiteering stresses that higher margins do not necessarily equate to higher quality, nor do lower margins imply lower quality. The goal should be to support the child’s needs, improve outcomes, and subsequently lower the costs of provision. However, the primary challenge remains budgetary and funding constraints faced by local authorities.

Bespoke solutions, such as tuition hubs for children close to re-entering mainstream education are essential. These hubs can provide tailored support to ensure a smooth transition back into the school environment.

What action should be taken?

The sector must focus on child-centric approaches, effective collaboration, and innovative solutions to navigate the current challenges. By prioritising the child’s needs and demonstrating positive outcomes, the sector can build a stronger case for adequate funding and support. As a provider, if you can demonstrate where money is being reinvested to drive up quality and outcomes, that’s a useful and constructive addition.

LEADERSHIP AND AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN HEALTHCARE BUSINESSES

As demand for high-quality, specialist care continues to grow, how can management navigate the complex environment, mitigate risk, secure investment, and ensure sustainability and innovation within the sector?

Investors in this space are showing a notable shift in appetite. While continuing to focus on identifying future leaders from within the sector – whether for CEO, CFO, or CPO roles – they are increasingly looking beyond traditional industry boundaries to source talent. This reflects a growing recognition of the need for financial and operational strategies to evolve with rising demands, including revenue diversification.

Take the Chief People Officer (CPO) role, for example. The CPO’s mandate is to foster a culture that attracts and retains a diverse team – one that is calm, focused, driven, and open to embracing technology, with a strong understanding of risk and quality outcomes.

Similarly, today’s CEO must be multifaceted, a strategic leader with deep experience in execution, a keen understanding of risk, and a strong focus on quality. They must leverage technology that delivers real value, foster a purpose-driven culture, understand competitors and market dynamics, and prioritise meaningful metrics and KPIs. Above all, they must lead with empathy and drive a people-first agenda.

Views from around the room: What does strong leadership look like to you?

Not losing sight of why you’re there creates a robust culture
Trust. Being able to challenge one another at every level is healthy and creates a stronger business
Need a passion for the sector itself and an understanding of what internal and external drivers
Someone who has risen through the ranks, who is an inspiration to others and brings about a strong, positive culture
While knowledge of the sector is beneficial, it’s not necessarily the case that the best talent is a sector specialist. Sometimes it’s about looking more broadly at the talent out there that could be great at driving leadership
Someone with an inherent entrepreneurial quality who can find a solution to a challenging landscape without diluting what the business is set to achieve
A leader who takes real-life stories back to the boardroom, reminding the corporate team that it’s not just about the numbers, it’s about bringing the personal element back

To find out more about the changing landscape of the children’s social care sector, or to join the team’s next roundtable event, contact:

Lizzie Wills: lizzie.wills@gkstrategy.com

Hannah Haines: hannah.haines@christie.com

Michâela Deasy: michaela@compasscarterosborne.com

Tariff climbdown offers Trump an off ramp, but uncertainty remains

History repeats itself. An adage the US President and his team of advisers would do well to heed.

In 2022 the radical tax cutting budget announced by Liz Truss’ government sent yields on UK gilts spiralling out of control, with the 10-year gilt yield increasing by the largest amount in a single day since the 1990s. The Bank of England had to intervene with emergency bond purchases to prevent a collapse in the pension fund market.

This market crisis ultimately had profound political consequences, with Kwasi Kwarteng being removed as Chancellor after just 38 days in office, and the end of Liz Truss’s premiership following soon after, making her the shortest-serving Prime Minister in UK history at only 49 days.

The episode highlighted how sensitive financial markets can be to fiscal policy decisions, particularly when they raise concerns about a country’s debt sustainability or when policy changes are announced without adequate preparation or buy-in from the market.

We can look further back to understand the might of the bond market. President Clinton’s economic adviser, James Carville, said: “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” This has arguably proved to be the case for President Trump – despite trillions being wiped off the stock market, it was rising yields on US Treasury bonds that forced him to blink.

The President claims that the decision to pause the new reciprocal tariff regime for 90 days was the result of 75 countries contacting the White House to express willingness to negotiate trade deals. This narrative creates a potential blueprint for a further watering down of tariffs once the pause ends. Trump has created some leeway to say that after successful negotiations countries will no longer be “ripping off” the United States and will point to his tariffs as a masterstroke in political and economic diplomacy. This exit strategy, however, may come too late to repair the damage done to the international economic and geopolitical order that Trump’s approach is likely to leave in its wake.

This short reprieve, as it may still turn out to be, is creating major issues for the global economy, with financial markets in a state of flux trying to pre-empt and then respond to Trump’s next move. The political and economic uncertainty of the next three months will be difficult to navigate, particularly for multinational businesses with complex supply chains.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has already acknowledged that fixating on whether the UK can negotiate the removal of its own 10% tariff is almost irrelevant, given the potentially more serious impacts the UK could face in the event of a global economic slowdown. A trade war between the two biggest global economies – the United States and China – would have far reaching implications that no country would be able to insulate itself from. The Bank of England has already warned that supply chain disruptions would be expected to weigh heavy on UK economic activity.

This all creates a big headache for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. Having had to make some politically unpopular decisions in recent week to restore the £9billion of fiscal headroom she identified in the autumn budget in October, she could once again find this headroom wiped out as UK growth is revised down. There is already speculation about HM Treasury’s potential response. Tax rises, more spending cuts, or additional borrowing are the options, and none of them are politically palatable.

The global economic challenges have already had an impact on the machinery of government. The Prime Minister has removed two key people from the Number 10 policy unit as part of efforts for the government to speed up economic growth and policy delivery. In the coming weeks it is likely the government will bring forward the publication of the government’s Industrial Strategy (originally scheduled for publication alongside the Spending Review in June) to demonstrate that the UK is open to business and ripe for international investment. The government has also shown a willingness to support industries that are exposed to tariffs. In anticipation of tariffs coming into effect, Starmer announced a watering down of regulations relating to electric vehicle sales targets to provide manufacturers with some breathing space. We are likely to see additional measures announced as the government continues its consultation with business on the impacts of higher tariffs, and what the UK’s response should be.

The government is facing a significant challenge to its central mission to grow the economy and raise living standards. A renewed emphasis to go further and faster in the delivery of its reform agenda, does, despite the doom and gloom, offer an opportunity for businesses. Policymakers are firmly in listening mode. Businesses that can offer solutions to the economic pressures the government is facing, as well as a commitment to investing in the UK, will find a welcoming ear.

The next few months will undoubtedly be challenging and uncertain. However, a renewed collaboration between the public and private sector to navigate these turbulent times has the potential to offer a pathway for the UK to position itself as a top destination for investment and business growth.

What does the future hold for crypto regulation?

Positioning the UK as a leader in the global market

UK policymakers and regulators have expressed their intention to encourage growth, innovation and competition in the digital assets industry. However, the government also wants to protect consumers and maintain market integrity. This is a balance that policymakers and regulators in other jurisdictions have found difficult to strike. The previous Conservative government wanted to make the UK a global hub for cryptoasset technology and investment – a goal shared by Keir Starmer.

Accelerating the timeline for reform

In 2018, HM Treasury (HMT) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began coordinating a phased regulatory approach, initially focusing on stablecoins before introducing new regulations for the wider cryptoassets industry.

Since the 2024 general election, the FCA’s approach has shifted slightly. The government has indicated its support for most of the reforms set out prior to the general election. However, Starmer is less focused on stablecoins than his predecessor and is likely to accelerate the timeline for the regulation of the wider cryptoasset industry, rather than adopt the phased approach.

The government is aware that other international hubs have also taken significant steps in regulating digital assets. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) became fully applicable in December 2024 and has introduced a comprehensive regulatory regime for the European bloc’s digital asset market. Given the EU continues to work on secondary legislation to supplement MiCA and also requires crypto firms to align with other EU rules on governance and data-sharing, the EU’s new regime is likely to significantly increase the regulatory burden on firms. The second Trump administration has already signalled that it will take a much more lenient approach in the US compared to the Biden administration. Trump has issued an executive order directing agencies within his administration to create a regulatory framework that supports the cryptoassets industry and limits unnecessary government intervention.

Firms operating across multiple jurisdictions need to be cognisant of how the UK’s approach differs with other cryptoasset hubs to ensure compliance. The government is likely to favour an approach that places the UK somewhere between the EU and the US. While the UK’s eventual cryptoassets regime is likely to provide stronger consumer protections than a Trump-inspired US regime, it is unlikely to be as prescriptive as the EU on the categorisation of cryptoassets, the scope of regulated activities, and disclosure obligations for cryptoasset issuers.

Implementing the new regulatory regime

In November 2024, the FCA published a “Crypto Roadmap” of key dates for the development and introduction of the UK’s cryptoasset regime. The roadmap sets out a series of consultations focused on different aspects of the future regulatory regime to be held over the course of 2025 and during the first quarter of 2026, with the final rules published in 2026. This includes the completion of a consultation on the proposed creation of an information sharing platform for industry stakeholders (to be approved by HMT) to prevent market abuse and boost compliance with future regulation. The FCA also plans to consult on a governance regime in autumn 2025 including further measures to ensure crypto firms adhere to the FCA’s Consumer Duty and its Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). This would likely require individuals in senior roles at firms be approved by the FCA or the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

The cryptoassets industry is likely to benefit from Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision to urge regulators to accelerate efforts to support growth and innovation. As part of a wider deregulation push, Reeves tweaked the FCA’s secondary objective to make it clear that the regulator must do more to make the UK financial services markets more competitive than other countries. Although the FCA’s CEO Nikhil Rathi is concerned that deregulation could lead to ‘bad actors slipping through the net’, he has said that he is willing to consider the easing of some consumer protections to reduce the regulatory burden. This could be significant for the cryptoassets industry. Larger firms are currently better placed to comply with expected new regulatory measures, while smaller firms may not have the internal structures and resources to do so, potentially forcing them out of the market or creating opportunities for consolidation.

We’d be delighted to share our perspectives on what the government’s crypto and fintech reforms could mean for you and how you can engage with policy debates. Please contact joshua@gkstrategy.com if you would like to discuss the reforms with the GK team.

Does the latest financial settlement for local authorities shift the dial on council finances?

The government has now confirmed the local authority financial settlement for 2025-26. This is a crucial time of year for councils who rely on these funds to deliver statutory services including adult and children’s social care, and support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Independent providers of these services should pay close attention to the financial settlement as it provides a good indication of future cost pressures for councils at a time when demand for statutory services continues to rise.

The final settlement will provide £69.4 billion of core spending power to local authorities in England. This represents a rise of £4.4 billion compared to 2024-25, constituting a 6.8% cash terms increase (or 4.3% when adjusted for inflation). Of this £69 billion figure, 24% is non-ring-fenced settlement funding, 14% is grants for social care, 6% is other grants, and the remaining 55% is council tax. While the overall increase in spending power is broadly aligned with increases in recent years, in real terms it is approximately 9% below where it was in 2010-11. Since this date, councils have become increasingly reliant on council tax revenue to meet their statutory obligations.

The funding settlement does not appear to provide much relief to local authorities who continue to struggle under the pressure of growing demand for services. Chair of the Local Government Association, Cllr Louise Gittins, said the extra funds ‘will help meet some of the cost and demand pressures they face but still falls short of what is desperately needed’. She went on to say that that the funding landscape remains extremely challenging for councils of all types and many could be forced to make further cuts to non-statutory services.

However, the government hopes change is on the horizon with its proposed reforms to local authority funding. Ministers believe these reforms will provide more financial certainty to councils, which will in turn allow them to better manage their spending and reduce cost pressures. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently concluded a consultation on local authority funding reform and is in the process of analysing the responses it received. One of the primary proposals under consideration is to move to a multi-year settlement from 2026-27, which the government believes ‘will enable [councils] to better plan ahead and achieve better outcomes for local residents, as well as better value for money for taxpayers.’

Overall, the recent confirmation of the local authority funding settlement points to more of the same for councils up and down the country – mounting cost pressures will leave council leaders scrambling to meet rising demand for services. For providers of local authority funded services, this demonstrates the ongoing importance of communicating to commissioners their high-quality, value for money offering which will reduce the burden on council resources. It will also be vital for businesses to monitor the government’s response to the consultation on local authority funding as this will allow them to best anticipate and respond to possible future changes to commissioning practices following the policy’s implementation.

To discuss the local authority funding landscape in more detail, please contact Hugo Tuckett (hugo@gkstrategy.com).

The Office for Students: A higher education aid or hindrance?

Late last year, Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson announced increases to university tuition fees starting in September 2025. However, this did little to quell concerns of financial sustainability in the higher education sector that has been the talk of university towns. The suspension of the Office for Students’ (OfS) ability to accept new registration applications and issue degree awarding powers has not helped to alleviate doubts over the stability and growth of the sector. These temporary changes to the OfS’ remit will though allow ministers to focus on a wider package of reforms to the body. These are set out in the OfS’ draft strategy for 2025 to 2030, which is currently out for consultation.

The draft strategy builds on priorities set out by Sir David Behan in his independent review, ‘Fit for the Future: Independent Review of the Office for Students’, which was published in July 2024. His main takeaways include a lack of engagement with students, overstretched powers, and its need to help develop financial sustainability in higher education.

Central to the OfS’ draft strategy is one of the government’s five main missions: ‘breaking down barriers to opportunity’. Equality of opportunity is an underlying theme of the strategy, and it claims to place the experience of students at the centre of higher education. There are three pillars which aim to achieve greater levels of student satisfaction: regulating higher education courses; expanding the OfS’ attention to areas that impact students’ engagement with higher education; and increasing the resilience and quality of higher education.

Although student experiences are important, there is an understanding from the OfS and stakeholders that students can’t experience all aspects of university life if their university is nearing financial collapse or bankruptcy. Financial resilience of the higher education sector is the lynch pin of high-quality provision and breaking down barriers. This is even more pertinent with the rising cost of living and students’ expectations that the fees they pay should provide them with quality experiences beyond the lecture theatre.

Despite previous uncertainty surrounding the OfS’ role in the future of higher education, the pause in its powers and the body’s focus on the consultation will allow for a reset moment.

For higher education providers, the consultation is a chance to make the case to government and the OfS about the quality of its courses and the importance of higher education to the UK’s growth ambitions. The development of a stable economic base and demonstrating how the sector can meet students’ expectations will be key for encouraging investment opportunities into the sector. Stakeholders should engage with the draft strategy to help create a clearer future for the higher education sector and increase dialogue between the OfS and providers.

What does the Renters’ Rights Bill mean for the future of rented housing?

GK Associate Director, Will Blackman, explores what the government’s new Renters’ Rights Bill means for the future of rented housing in England.

The government’s Renters’ Rights Bill completed its passage in the House of Commons this week and is expected to receive Royal Assent in the coming months following the completion of its Lords’ stages. What does this significant piece of legislation mean for the private rented sector and the housing market as a whole?

The origins of this bill go back several years. The Theresa May government in 2019 first consulted on reforms to rebalance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, which included the ability of landlords to issue Section 21 notices, or so-called ‘no-fault’ evictions. This change continues to sit at the heart of the bill and is intended to give greater stability and security of tenure to tenants. It also provides landlords with reformed and expanded grounds for seeking possession of their properties under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This includes cases where the landlord wishes to sell or to move into the property themselves. Other measures include stricter requirements around rent increases, the creation of a new ombudsman, new requirements on landlords to remedy mould and damp problems and a new right for tenants to request a pet.

The last Conservative government introduced its own version of this legislation – the Renters’ Reform Bill – however this fell away following the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the General Election. The Labour government’s version of the bill – now the Renters’ Rights Bill – includes some significant differences to its predecessor, almost all to the benefit of tenants rather than landlords. For example, tenants must now be in three months of rent arrears before landlords can seek possession, rather than the two months proposed by the Conservatives; the grace period after which landlords can seek possession in order to sell the property has also been doubled from six to twelve months and the notice period extended from two to four months. Moreover, the current version of the bill gives tenants new rights to terminate a tenancy from day one with two months’ notice – something previously not allowed under the last bill until at least four months after a tenancy started. This would have effectively created a minimum six-month term.

These reforms are the most significant changes to the regulation of the private rented sector for over 35 years. The residential landlord sector has been careful not to be seen opposing the legislation outright given the unhelpful optics around this. However, many individual landlords are concerned that the balance has tipped too far away from them, potentially leaving many unable to take back possession of their properties in reasonable circumstances. Court backlogs have provided an additional layer of concern, with delays in processing evictions claims already persisting in many parts of England, with many landlords calling for significant improvements in order to allay their concerns.

Some industry leaders such as Propertymark and the National Residential Landlords Association have warned that the proposed provisions could lead to landlords withdrawing from the sector, in turn limiting supply and driving up rents. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government’s own impact assessment does not predict an exodus of landlords from the sector. Indeed, landlords have been subject to a raft of regulatory and tax changes since 2015, but these have not resulted in significant divestment from the private rental market, which many had predicted at the time.

However these changes play out in the long term, individual and institutional investors in the private rented sector will need to grasp this new regulatory landscape quickly, especially given its wide-ranging impacts for the sector and the prospect of significant disruption to their portfolio. It is the case that home ownership remains unaffordable for many and this is unlikely to change in the near term. However, as the government looks to tip the balance in favour of tenants, it is vital that investors engage with the new regulatory landscape to ensure they are well prepared and can take steps to insulate themselves from any emerging risks.

To discuss the government’s housing policy reforms in more detail, please contact Will Blackman at will@gkstrategy.com