UK house price growth accelerated as buyers rushed to beat stamp duty deadline
The average UK house price increased by 6.4% annually in March, accelerating from 5.5% annual growth in February, according to official figures.
This took the average UK house price in March to £271,000, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
The ending of a stamp duty holiday from April onwards sparked a stampede of home-buyers in the run-up. Stamp duty applies in England and Northern Ireland.
The figures were released as statistics showed UK inflation surged to its highest level for more than a year last month.
Households have been clobbered by a raft of 'awful April' bill increases.
Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation reached 3.5% in April, up from 2.6% in March and the highest level since January 2024. This was higher than some economists had been predicting, with a rise of 3.3% having been expected.
Andrew Montlake, chief executive at Coreco mortgage brokers, said: 'With inflation edging up sharply this morning, and mortgage rates likely to follow as expectations of further base rate cuts reduce, this could see average values start to retreat again. If prices do start to ease, they will only go so far as there is a fundamental lack of supply.'
Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by 3.5% in the 12 months to April 2025, up from 2.6% in March 2025.
Read the full article ➡️ https://t.co/eeQd9l83c7 pic.twitter.com/yzyEv4hdEL
— Office for National Statistics (ONS) (@ONS) May 21, 2025
Jonathan Handford, managing director at estate agent group Fine & Country, said: 'In the months ahead, inflation and still-elevated borrowing costs are likely to weigh on demand, particularly as affordability remains stretched across much of the country.
'That said, a period of softer or stabilising house prices may offer a welcome opportunity for first-time buyers who have been priced out in some areas of the country.'
Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said the 'rush to seal a deal' before the end of the stamp duty holiday provided some extra impetus for the housing market.
She added: 'This may well slow again in the next set of figures, which is the usual pattern in the aftermath of a stamp duty holiday. However, we're unlikely to see anything too dramatic.
'This period has been marked by robust price growth rather than stellar leaps, so the hangover from the property party is likely to be less painful.
'Lower mortgage rates should also help support prices. However, with buyer numbers likely to have dropped off fairly sharply, there's going to be some room for negotiation.'
Nick Leeming, chairman of estate agent Jackson-Stops, said: 'Encouragingly, across the Jackson-Stops network we are seeing robust activity levels, with demand outpacing supply in popular markets. In April alone, an average of five potential buyers were competing for every new listing, underscoring borrowers' continued commitment.'
Jeremy Leaf, a north London estate agent, said some potential buyers and sellers are 'sitting on their hands', adding: 'The recent cut in mortgage rates has restored some confidence but April's sharp rise in inflation will not help.'
Average house prices increased to £296,000 (6.7% annual growth) in England, £208,000 (3.6%) in Wales, and £186,000 (4.6%) in Scotland, in the 12 months to March, according to the ONS.
The average house price in Northern Ireland was £185,000 in the first quarter of 2025 – a 9.5% annual increase.
Iain McKenzie, chief executive of the Guild of Property Professionals, said: 'We cannot ignore the subdued economic backdrop and ongoing geopolitical uncertainties which will likely ensure a more measured pace of growth for the remainder of the year.'
Richard Harrison, head of mortgages at Atom bank, said: 'Lenders have been incredibly active in reducing rates.'
The ONS also said average UK monthly private rents increased by 7.4%, to £1,335, in the year to April. The annual growth rate eased from 7.7% in March.
Average rents increased to £1,390 per month (7.5% annual growth) in England, £795 (8.7%) in Wales, and £999 (5.1%) in Scotland, in April.
In Northern Ireland, average rents increased to £843 (7.8% annual growth) in the 12 months to February, the report said.
Within England, annual inflation in private rents was highest in the North East region (9.4%) and lowest in Yorkshire and the Humber (4.0%), in April.
Nathan Emerson, chief executive of property professionals' body Propertymark, said: 'Overwhelming demand within the rental sector continues to influence price increases for those who rent. We continue to witness, on average, around 10 applicants for every property available to rent and this is a situation that has broadly remained stagnated across the last five years.
'It is imperative that rental supply rises to meet the challenges of demand.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: Rising inflation leaving those with the least paying the most
Let's be honest. We're going to get a lot more inflation. Why? Two reasons. First, Rachel Reeves and the rest of this Government secretly quite welcome it. Second, the Bank of England isn't strong enough to tackle the scourge, even though that is its most important job. If you think that is too cynical, look at the evidence of the past few days. We had inflation figures showing that the Consumer Price Index, the CPI, was running at 3.4 per cent. It's bad enough that this is way above the Bank's 2 per cent target, but dig deeper and the numbers get worse. Allow for owner-occupied housing costs, the so-called CPIH, and the figure is 4 per cent. This is a more accurate tally for most of us since 64 per cent of our homes are owner-occupied. It gets worse. The RPI, the Retail Prices Index, which sets the costs of many business contracts and the charges on the index-linked portion of our national debt, rose 4.3 per cent. On any rational assessment, inflation is running at double the target rate. You would imagine there would be some debate at the Bank about increasing interest rates, particularly since it expects inflation to continue around this level, maybe higher, through the autumn. But no, three of the Monetary Policy Committee voted for a cut, the rest voted to keep rates where they are. This says that they are more worried about a soft economy, and in particular the job losses, that are feeding through as a result of the increase in employers' National Insurance, than they are about inflation. Of course, they are right to be concerned about the economy. We all are. But in effect, they are having to compensate for what most economists would agree was a mistake by Rachel Reeves: clobbering businesses in her Budget last year. Now look at all this from the Chancellor's perspective. She is in a jam. Revenues are weaker than she and the Office for Budget Responsibility expected, and it looks like there will have to be tax increases in the Autumn Budget. That is before all the extra money needed for defence and all the other pressures on spending pile in. There is, however, one thing that is helping: fiscal drag. Higher inflation boosts revenues as rising wages push people into higher tax brackets – even if in real terms their pay does not rise at all. Think back to Reeves' statement on public spending ten days ago. All that stuff about millions more for a list of projects, and a reference to lower interest rates, but barely a squeak about inflation. For what it's worth, the CPI in June last year – the month before Labour won the General Election – was exactly on target: 2 per cent. It's called the money illusion. The Government can say it is spending more money, but in real terms, it may end up spending less. In defence of our government, we are not alone. In the US, Donald Trump's tariffs will inevitably increase prices. In Europe, rearmament will be financed by more borrowing, which will pile pressure on prices there. But the fact is, our inflation figure of 3.4 per cent compares with 2.4 per cent in the US and 1.9 per cent in the eurozone. No wonder our government has to pay more to finance its national debt than any other G7 nation. The harsh judgment on the Bank of England is that it has been less effective in carrying out its prime duty than the US Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank. The thing that worries me most about inflation, even more than the economic costs, is the social damage it causes. Those with strong bargaining power, like heavily unionised train drivers, can negotiate above-inflation pay rises. But those in weaker positions cannot, and right now risk losing their jobs. If asset prices soar – and despite global mayhem, shares are close to all-time highs – those with the greatest wealth gain the most. The most sophisticated investors benefit. But those unable to pay for the best advice see the value of their savings whittled away. It is the fault of our government and our central bank. We deserve better.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson questions if `monied interests' are favored by court
Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a "troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals - Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. "And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's "remarkably lenient approach" to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the "stern stance" it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls "In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing," Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. "The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders," he wrote.
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests." With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote. The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said. "Also, I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she added. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process. Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading. Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others." Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue. The bottom line, he added, is that the government "may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders." The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act. In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver.
