If you’re a landlord (or thinking about becoming one), you’ve probably asked yourself: “Should I rent out my property as a single let or go full HMO?” It’s a bit like choosing between a quiet dinner for two or hosting a full-blown dinner party—both have their perks, but they also come with their own unique challenges.
So, let’s break it down in a way that won’t put you to sleep faster than a bland lease agreement. Which option puts more money in your pocket, and which one will keep your stress levels in check?
What’s the Difference?
Single Let – The ‘Classic’ Rental
A single let (or buy-to-let) is the traditional approach—one household rents the entire property, pays a single rent amount, and takes responsibility for all the bills. Think families, couples, or professional sharers who just want a peaceful place to live.
✅ Pros:
✔️ Steady, predictable income – One rent payment, one tenancy agreement, less admin.
✔️ Lower management hassle – Fewer tenants mean fewer potential issues.
✔️ Less wear and tear – A single household typically takes better care of a property than multiple individuals.
❌ Cons:
❌ Potential void periods – If your tenant moves out, your entire rental income stops until you find a replacement.
❌ Lower rental yield – Single lets usually bring in less monthly income compared to HMOs.
HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) – The ‘More the Merrier’ Model
An HMO is when a property is rented out by the room to multiple tenants who aren’t from the same household (think student houses, young professionals, or room-sharers). Each tenant pays separately, and you (or your agent) often cover the bills.
✅ Pros:
✔️ Higher rental income – More tenants = more rent, often significantly higher than a single let.
✔️ Reduced risk of full void periods – If one tenant moves out, you still have others paying rent.
✔️ Increased demand – Especially in city centers and university towns.
❌ Cons:
❌ More management work – More tenants mean more maintenance requests, rent chasing, and general admin.
❌ Stricter regulations – HMOs require specific licensing, safety measures, and compliance with additional legal requirements.
❌ Higher running costs – With most HMOs, landlords cover utilities, WiFi, and sometimes even cleaning services.
Which One Makes You More Money?
Here’s where it gets interesting. HMOs generally generate higher rental yields than single lets, often 7-10% compared to 4-6% for traditional rentals. More rooms = more rent = bigger income.
Example time! 🎉
- Single Let: A 3-bed house rents for £1,200/month to a family.
- HMO: The same property, rented as 3 rooms at £550 each, brings in £1,650/month—an extra £450 per month.
Sounds like an easy win, right? Well, not so fast…
While the HMO brings in more money, expenses are also higher—you’ll likely be paying for council tax, utilities, and property management. Plus, stricter regulations can mean additional costs for fire doors, emergency lighting, and licensing fees.
So, Which One Is Right for You?
🤷♂️ Go for a single let if:
✔️ You want a low-maintenance investment with steady income.
✔️ You don’t want to deal with extra licensing and regulations.
✔️ You prefer long-term, stable tenants.
🏡 Go for an HMO if:
✔️ You’re willing to be hands-on (or hire an agent to do it for you).
✔️ You want to maximize rental income and can handle higher turnover.
✔️ You’re prepared to meet the extra legal requirements.
Final Verdict: More Money or More Sanity?
If you’re after simplicity, stability, and minimal hassle, a single let is your best bet. But if you’re looking to maximize profits and don’t mind extra work (or management fees), an HMO could be the golden ticket.
Want help managing your rental? Whether it’s a single let or an HMO, we’ve got the expertise to make your life easier. Get in touch today and let’s chat! 📞🏡
