Lloyds 'the landlord' signs another megadeal to build more rented home

[pi3141]

Lloyds 'the landlord' signs another megadeal to build more rented homes

Nigel Lewis
June 12, 2025

 

Lloyds has taken the next step towards becoming one of the UK’s biggest private landlords by expanding its portfolio to more than 6,000 homes.

 

The bank, which likes to say it's 'by your side' in its horse-heavy adverts, has for several years now been keen to be people's landlord too. Lloyds Living – the banking group’s property firm – has agreed another big property deal with Barratt Redrow, the UK’s largest housebuilder, as part of its build-to-rent partnership with the firm.

The 598 two, three and four-bedroom single family homes will be in 11 new and existing Lloyds Living sites including Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Cheshire and Gloucestershire. The first homes are expected to be available to rent from July in Abingdon, Finchampstead (main image) and Crewe, with the rest delivered by the end of 2027.

 

Link - https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/lloyds-the-landlord-signs-another-megadeal-to-build-more-rented-homes

 

 

 

 

What happened to the monopoly commission?

 

Banks owning their customers homes and taking a cut from every card transaction and managing the wages paid in.

 

Facism can be reduced to Corporate Rule.

 

If banks are our landlords, off shore multinational companies our employers, it won't be good for us, let's put it that way.

 

It made me laugh over the weekend in the news, Laura Kuensberg questioning Farage on his tax affairs and how they don't relate to normal people....

 

Coming from a BBC employee who encouraged all their employed talent to go Freelance so they could avoid tax.

 

How many normal people Freelance at Tesco for tax purposes?

 

[Grumpy Owl]

I wrote about Lloyds Bank on my own website a few years ago now...

 

Lloyds Bank plans to become private landlord – another step towards “abolish private property ownership”?

Quote

My emphasis in bold. Instead of offloading ‘acquired’ property to recoup cash, what if the banks kept hold of these ‘assets’ and then offered them out for rent?

It seems to me a great way to manage the property market, as well as control the available housing stock, by acquiring and renting out properties, thus limiting the purchasing availability.

“You will own nothing, and you’ll be happy”

If there is an economic crash, which lets face it is going to happen sooner rather than later, there are going to be a lot of people who can’t afford to meet their mortgage repayments, and will ‘default’ on their debt.

Assets will be seized, but as a result of the ‘crash’, the current housing market will be destroyed, unless you are already a wealthy private landlord or investment company with the cash to buy up these liquidated assets.

Private home ownership will become a thing of the past, because there will be no homes left to buy.

Banks will make their money by renting out properties, as well as ‘loaning’ money to renters in order to pay their deposits. And of course, by selling them ‘insurances’.

 

I suppose by working with a developer to actually build 'new homes', it is a short way of skipping out what I described above.

 

2 hours ago, pi3141 said:

The 598 two, three and four-bedroom single family homes will be in 11 new and existing Lloyds Living sites including Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Cheshire and Gloucestershire. The first homes are expected to be available to rent from July in Abingdon, Finchampstead (main image) and Crewe, with the rest delivered by the end of 2027.

 

The question for now though is who are these homes intended to be rented to? Are they aimed at 'middle-class' families, being squeezed out of the 'big cities'? There's a clear desire for such properties in the cities, so they can be converted into HMOs, and then rented out to the Government's agents such as Serco etc, to accommodate illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers. You can imagine the 'encouragement' already: "sell your city home, and rent a nice new home out in the shires".

 

Or perhaps these new properties will just be rented out for the asylum-seekers and illegals to live in. 

[pi3141]

23 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

I wrote about Lloyds Bank on my own website a few years ago now...

 

Lloyds Bank plans to become private landlord – another step towards “abolish private property ownership”?

 

I suppose by working with a developer to actually build 'new homes', it is a short way of skipping out what I described above.

 

 

The question for now though is who are these homes intended to be rented to? Are they aimed at 'middle-class' families, being squeezed out of the 'big cities'? There's a clear desire for such properties in the cities, so they can be converted into HMOs, and then rented out to the Government's agents such as Serco etc, to accommodate illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers. You can imagine the 'encouragement' already: "sell your city home, and rent a nice new home out in the shires".

 

Or perhaps these new properties will just be rented out for the asylum-seekers and illegals to live in. 

 

It's the start of facism.

 

They don't care who they rent to, they'll be looking very long term.

 

When they have 50000 homes they can bargain better insurance and home maintenance deals.

 

I know Lloyds will insure themselves but what if Tesco get in on this.

 

They'll call up Lloyd's offer them 50,000 homes to insure, all with same ovens, heating systems and rules to tenants. 

 

So they'll get cheaper insurance. 

 

Same as mortgages. They won't buy 1 house off a new build estate, they'll buy 10, or all of it. Get a deal on finance. 

 

Contract a maintenance company to handle all their properties. 

 

They won't care how much homes cost, if you look 100 or 200 years ahead, what's the rental yield.

 

If this continues we'll all be renting from big businesses, working for big businesses, living in houses with identical restrictions. 

 

They could ban snakes as pets.

 

Woks for cooking.

 

They could implement any restrictions they choose on health and safety or insurance reasons.

 

We will be told how to live by our employers.

 

We will see houses never coming to market and if they do it'll 4 times what its worth because of the long-term rental potential to big business. 

 

Again, throw in an offshore company and all the wealth generated by that business is sucked out of our economy to unknown bank accounts.

 

There would be zero accountability. 

 

Lloyds, by your side, until we're under their boot.

 

This is corporate takeover. 

 

Again, where us the monopoly commission? 

 

Businesses should not have total influence over people's lives like a company should not be allowed to aggressively dominate a market.

 

Labour are not who we think they are. They're just not, they do not represent the common worker.

 

[pi3141]

Lloyds Bank becomes the latest ‘for profit’ registered social landlord

May 29, 2025
 

Is shared ownership the new, secure investment product to replace ground rents?

 

For profit social housing means profits go to shareholders, not to improve stock or build more (but then, like leasehold, tenants find there is nothing ‘shared’ when it comes to paying the bills)

 

 

By Martin Boyd
Martin is chair of LKP and the taxpayer-funded Leasehold Advisory Service

 

Lloyds Bank has always been involved in many aspects of the property sector. They once found themselves in dispute with the Tchenguiz group over loans linked to ground rent investments. They have provided funds for developers, they have provided mortgages under various names and have owned various estate agency firms.

 

In 2021 they entered the build to rent market and as of the start of May this year have become the latest in a line of new “for profit” social landlords.

 

Lbg Equity Investments Ltd (LBGEIL) is a 100% subsidiary of the bank that in turn owns a set of subsidiaries some of which are now directly in the property market.

 

LGEIL has a loan facility with the bank of £8 billion. In the past, it has been know as LB Mortgages Ltd and before that TSB Mortgages Ltd

Citra Living Ltd, trading as Lloyds Living, is an LBGEIR subsidiary which now owns 3,500 rental homes. It now enters the marked as a for profit social landlord.

 

Since 2021 Citra Living has purchased 50I homes from Barratts and in 2023 completed another purchase of 604 new homes at a cost of £168.4 million.

 

Citra Living Ltd (CLL) borrowing facility with LBGEIL is £840 million of which £324 million has been drawn down leaving them with over half a billion to invest.

 

CLL owns their properties via various subsidiaries:

 

Citra Living Development (no1) Ltd -formed 2022
Citra Living Development (no2) Ltd -formed 2024
Citra Living Properties (No1) Ltd -formed 2021
Citra Living Properties (No2) Ltd – formed 2023

 

The ownership of the individual sites potentially sits under a further layer of subsidiaries such as Citra Living The Rise Cardiff Ltd, Citra Living Wharf Street Ltd etc but these companies have yet to file accounts.

 

The ownership of Citra Living Broadside is less clear. This “entity has re-domiciled from Luxembourg to Jersey”; it uses the same mainland address as the Lloyds Bank and the other Citra Subsidiaries.

 

It should also be noted that in 2024 Lloyds entered into agreement with Barratt and Lloyds Banking Group in a £150m joint venture with Homes England that will to build new homes. The combined venture, known as the MADE Partnership.

 

Link - https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/lloyds-bank-becomes-the-latest-for-profit-registered-social-landlord/

 

 

Apparently there 80 companies registered as for profit social landlords with agreements with house builders to buy new builds and probably agreements with government to house people.

 

Profits funneled offshore.

 

Seriously, we are sliding into facism, back to being serf's on the Land.

 

Starmer said Labour is the party for business and the worker.

 

Business first.

 

 

Edited September 10 by pi3141

[Grumpy Owl]

6 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Apparently there 80 companies registered as for profit social landlords with agreements with house builders to buy new builds and probably agreements with government to house people.

 

Profits funneled offshore.

 

Seriously, we are sliding into facism, back to being serf's on the Land.

 

Starmer said Labour is the party for business and the worker.

 

Business first.

 

It goes back to the question I've been asking for years, "who exactly are we building all these 'new homes' for?"

 

Because most British families still can't afford to buy a home. 

 

Clearly this is all being done to benefit developers and 'investors', so they can make a nice profit and then funnel it offshore to avoid paying tax. 

 

Which is f**king wrong when these developers are getting grants and funding from national/local government as a contribution towards costs. 

 

When Andy Street was Mayor Of The West Midlands, I'd often see his social media posts boasting about how the WMCA (West Mids Combined Authority) were "putting cash on the table" so that "development opportunities can be unlocked". Depending on the scheme, this was between a few hundred thousand pounds to millions of pounds. 

 

In a nutshell, the WMCA was awarding taxpayers money to developers, to pay for site clearance and remedial works. Imagine it, greedy developers buying up tracts of unused land and derelict buildings, then someone else gives them money to clean up and 'decontaminate' old industrial land, and to demolish old existing buildings! That must save the developers a few quid in costs, then they only need to worry about putting up new substandard buildings which they can sell on at increased margins. 

[pi3141]

17 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

It goes back to the question I've been asking for years, "who exactly are we building all these 'new homes' for?"

 

Because most British families still can't afford to buy a home. 

 

Clearly this is all being done to benefit developers and 'investors', so they can make a nice profit and then funnel it offshore to avoid paying tax. 

 

Which is f**king wrong when these developers are getting grants and funding from national/local government as a contribution towards costs. 

 

When Andy Street was Mayor Of The West Midlands, I'd often see his social media posts boasting about how the WMCA (West Mids Combined Authority) were "putting cash on the table" so that "development opportunities can be unlocked". Depending on the scheme, this was between a few hundred thousand pounds to millions of pounds. 

 

In a nutshell, the WMCA was awarding taxpayers money to developers, to pay for site clearance and remedial works. Imagine it, greedy developers buying up tracts of unused land and derelict buildings, then someone else gives them money to clean up and 'decontaminate' old industrial land, and to demolish old existing buildings! That must save the developers a few quid in costs, then they only need to worry about putting up new substandard buildings which they can sell on at increased margins. 

 

Thanks.

 

I didn't see all this coming.

 

It is PRS as David writes, create or allow a problem to manifest so a solution can be provided.

 

I asked today on my immigration thread, why did we need the EHCR?

 

We had good human rights in the UK and Europe, so why did we need it.

 

Again they convinced us a problem existed where none did and bought it all in.

 

Now we see they are using it to destroy sovereignty. 

 

We need more houses. Did we?

 

Now we see we're flooded with immigration and yes we do need houses so the solution is give money and preference to big business, hand out tax payers money so a corporation can profit and funnel money overseas.

 

It seems TPTB are pushing for corporate rule, corporations with human rights but nobody actually accountable for wrong doing, because it's a corporation. 

 

It can commit crimes and nobody goes to jail.

 

These politicians can get sacked from a post only to return in one form or another. If I get sacked for my performance from a company, I will find it very hard to get another job in the same industry. They don't. 

 

If government are going to give our money to corporations to build our houses and allow those companies to dominate, or in other words, monopolize the industry, that breaks their own rules, mismanaged our economy and hands massive control of our lives to unaccounted, offshore corporations who can behave as they please because they are largely unaccountable. 

 

If I work for a company whom I also bank with and rent my property from, I am no better off than the Serf's of yesteryear.

 

When corporations have enough control, our energy, transport and infrastructure as well as owning the homes, businesses and banks, the government won't listen to the electorate, their priority will be keeping business happy.

 

Taxpayer funded bailouts because they're to big to fail.

 

 

[cosmicinaudio]

I remember it used to be common to hear people say "In Germany most people rent their homes", as if they're so much more enlightened and forward-thinking than we property owning English dullards.

[pi3141]

7 hours ago, cosmicinaudio said:

I remember it used to be common to hear people say "In Germany most people rent their homes", as if they're so much more enlightened and forward-thinking than we property owning English dullards.

 

Do you know, I heard exactly the same thing.

 

But I was told, the rents are cheap, the property stays in the family for generations unless they don't want it and the premises are yours to do as you please.

 

No 6 monthly inspections, no restrictions on pets, smoking, or  decorating.

 

I went to see a house once, but the landlord was using the attic room for storage and we couldn't use it.

 

If you rent in UK, the restrictions are ridiculous, the cost is not cheap and the maintenance will be sub standard. And you have to endure inspections. 

 

I even had 1 company that insisted all my electrical items were PAT tested yearly.

 

In this country you used to rent cheap to save a deposit. Not now, and iff shareholders become our landlords, it'll be a living nightmare.