Property vs pensions: Is property as a retirement plan dead? This was the headline from a reputable weekly publication this morning and written, I suspect, by a financial services leaning writer. The article listed all the challenges facing property and mentioned none of those impacting pension arrangements.  This headline is trotted out a few times a year by financial advisers, desperate to muscle in to the property space but it has caused me to put out an alternative view which is, why not combine the two? Research we conducted in Q1 confirmed that 90% of landlords we met listed S.24 as their main bugbear and almost the same number asked if we could deal with the property transfer to a company as obviously that was the better option. As regular readers know we don't generally support this and provide the evidence to prove that there are better options, especially where there is no requirement to change ownership. One option is to combine pension with property; financial advisers will point out that this can't be done - pensions accept commercial property only. This is usually followed by a sarcastic comment or two! I point out that, of course there are pension arrangements, governed by UK law and kept firmly in check by UK tax authorities which DO allow residential investment property. And have so for over a quarter of a century. Though there is no tax relief on contributions to these arrangements [tax relief which is clawed back when benefits are taken under the FS arrangements] they can invest in UK and overseas real estate without restriction. Tax free investment growth. Tax free income. The rules regarding unused pensions and IHT are applicable but as these pensions can be established from the age of 3 months, it does push back by a considerable margin the threat. Perhaps the article could have been "Property and Pensions" - allowing investors to align their preferred asset class with the immediate attractions of pension arrangements. 

Posted by Chris Haley at 2026-06-18 10:40:14 UTC