We do both, so we have no particular interest in pushing you toward either. What follows is the comparison we would give a landlord sitting across the table from us.
The headline: short-lets usually gross more
A property that lets for £900 a month on a standard tenancy might gross meaningfully more as a short-let across a good year. That is the number people quote, and in the right property in the right location it is real.
It is also gross, not net, and the gap between those two words is where most of the disappointment lives.
What comes out of a short-let that does not come out of a tenancy
Voids between every booking, not every tenancy. A long-term let might be empty two weeks a year. A short-let is empty whenever it is not booked, and occupancy of 100% is not a thing.
Cleaning and linen, every single turnover. This is the cost landlords underestimate most consistently.
Bills. On a short-let you pay the gas, electricity, water, council tax, broadband and TV licence. On an assured shorthold tenancy the tenant generally does. This alone can be a few hundred pounds a month.
Furnishing, and replacing it. A short-let must be fully furnished and equipped to a standard guests will review, and things wear out or disappear faster than they do in a home someone lives in.
Platform fees. Airbnb, Booking.com and the rest all take a cut.
Management, if you are not doing it yourself. Guest messaging is not a nine-to-five activity.
What comes out of a long-term let
Considerably less: agent fees if managed, maintenance, safety certificates, insurance, and any void between tenancies. The income is lower but far more predictable, and predictable income is worth something — particularly if there is a mortgage on the property.
Effort
A long-term let, well managed, is close to passive. A short-let is a small hospitality business. Enquiries, check-ins, key handovers, a guest who cannot find the bin store at 11pm, a boiler failing on a Saturday with someone in the property. It can be systematised — that is precisely what we do for our short-let landlords — but it does not disappear.
Risk and regulation
Short-lets carry the greater regulatory uncertainty. Depending on the local authority there may be planning considerations, and licensing or registration schemes for short-term lets have been expanding across the UK. If you have a mortgage, check your lender permits short-letting — many buy-to-let products do not, and letting in breach of your mortgage conditions is a serious matter. Standard landlord insurance also frequently excludes short-term lettings; you will likely need a specific policy.
Leaseholders should read the lease carefully. Clauses requiring use as a private dwelling, or prohibiting subletting for short periods, are common.
So which one?
Short-lets tend to suit properties that are well located for visitors — near a city centre, a hospital, a university, a station — that are already furnished to a good standard, where the owner has appetite for variable income, and where the mortgage and lease permit it.
Long-term lets tend to suit properties where stable, predictable income matters most, that are away from visitor demand, where the owner wants genuinely low involvement, or where lender or lease restrictions settle the question anyway.
And the honest answer for a lot of properties is that the difference, after costs, is smaller than the headline suggests — at which point the deciding factor is not money but how involved you want to be.
How Lova handles this: we manage both, so when we appraise a property we will tell you what it would achieve on each basis, including the costs. If a standard tenancy is the better answer for your property, we will say so.
