Are Guaranteed Rent Property Investments Really as Guaranteed as They Seem? Why Foot Forward Properties Takes a Different Approach
October 16, 2026
The UK property investment market has seen a considerable increase in companies and middlemen appearing almost overnight, offering investors supposedly guaranteed rental income. Many of these businesses are not established property developers, experienced landlords or specialist management companies. Instead, they operate primarily as intermediaries, connecting investors with accommodation providers before marketing the arrangement as a completely hands-off investment with guaranteed rent.
Unfortunately, we believe there is a growing problem with the way some of these investments are being marketed, and in certain cases, there are serious concerns about potential mis-selling.
We are also seeing more investors coming forward online with accounts of property sourcing companies accepting substantial upfront fees, only for the promised investment opportunities, developments or rental arrangements never to materialise. Some describe paying thousands of pounds before experiencing prolonged delays, poor communication, changes to the original agreement or difficulties recovering their money.
Although individual allegations need to be assessed on their own evidence, these accounts raise serious questions about the accountability of companies collecting substantial fees before delivering anything of tangible value.
Paying a property sourcing fee does not guarantee that an investment will materialise, just as signing a guaranteed rent agreement does not guarantee that the organisation responsible for paying it will remain financially solvent.
Investors are regularly presented with attractive NET yields, five-year guaranteed rental agreements and promises of completely passive income. What is not always explained clearly is that the company selling the investment may have very little involvement once the property has been purchased, refurbished and handed over to the eventual accommodation provider.
The middleman earns their fee, the investor takes ownership of the property, and responsibility for paying the promised rent falls on a completely separate organisation. An organisation whose financial position, operating history and ability to meet its rental commitments the investor may know very little about.
In some cases, investors are also paying considerably inflated prices for properties because they come with supposedly guaranteed rental agreements. The premium is justified by the promised income, despite the underlying property potentially being worth substantially less on the open market without the lease attached.
This becomes particularly concerning when the agreement lasts only five years. If the provider experiences financial difficulties, fails to meet its contractual obligations or decides not to renew the lease, the investor could find themselves holding a property worth considerably less than their original investment.
From social housing and affordable housing schemes to temporary accommodation, supported living and other lease-based arrangements, investors are regularly promised attractive returns without the traditional responsibilities of being a landlord.
On paper, these investments can sound fantastic. No tenants to manage, no maintenance calls, no void periods to worry about and a fixed rental payment arriving every month.
However, there is one important question investors should be asking: How guaranteed is that rental income when the organisation responsible for paying it does not have sufficient money to honour its commitments?
At Foot Forward Property Investments, we have spent over 34 years developing and managing property investments, with more than £135 million of property developed across our professional HMO and specialist care and education portfolios.
We are not middlemen introducing investors to unknown third-party providers in exchange for a sourcing fee. We develop the properties ourselves, manage the development process through our in-house team and work directly with our established specialist care and education provider, in which our directors also hold an ownership interest.
Over those years, we have deliberately avoided entering the social housing, general affordable housing, temporary accommodation and unregulated supported accommodation investment markets. Not because every company operating within these sectors is unreliable, but because we prefer investment structures where the underlying asset, the operator and the financial sustainability of the rental commitments can all be properly assessed.
For our long-term leased investments, that means concentrating on regulated children’s care homes, regulated adult residential and complex needs care facilities, and specialist SEN school properties.
Our decision is supported by our experience in property development and management, as well as concerns raised by the Regulator of Social Housing about the financial sustainability of certain lease-based housing arrangements.
When even a statutory regulator is raising concerns about the financial viability of some lease-based operating models, investors should be asking considerably more questions before accepting the phrase guaranteed rent at face value.
Even the Regulator of Social Housing Has Raised Concerns About Lease-Based Investments
On 10 April 2025, the Regulator of Social Housing published an official report titled Focus Report: Lease-based Provision of Specialised Supported Housing, examining the financial and operational difficulties affecting certain providers operating within this particular market.
The findings should encourage any investor considering a guaranteed rental arrangement to examine the organisation responsible for paying their rent.
The regulator identified persistent financial difficulties among certain providers, including weak governance, unsuitable properties, problematic lease arrangements and cases of financial distress or insolvency.
Its findings highlighted that some registered providers had entered into substantial long-term rental commitments without sufficient financial flexibility to manage the risks associated with those arrangements.
The regulator also drew attention to the problems caused by high void levels, rental arrears, management costs and financial assumptions that did not reflect the realities of operating specialist supported accommodation.
In some cases, landlords had become financially distressed or insolvent when the risks associated with cash flow, vacancies and management costs materialised.
Particularly concerning was the observation that some lease-based housing providers were operating with rental obligations that consumed such a substantial proportion of their income that they had insufficient financial flexibility to manage unexpected expenditure.
The regulator identified that more successful arrangements tended to feature a clear relationship with the commissioning authority, suitable financial provisions for future expenditure, reliable arrangements to manage vacancies and a more equitable distribution of financial risk between the property owner and registered housing provider.
These findings specifically concern lease-based specialised supported housing, rather than every social housing investment, affordable housing development or guaranteed rent arrangement.
Nevertheless, they expose a problem investors should recognise across any investment promising fixed rental income.
A legally binding agreement is only as financially dependable as the organisation responsible for honouring it.
This was not the first time the regulator had raised concerns about the sector.
On 4 April 2019, the Regulator of Social Housing published an earlier report examining the financial sustainability of lease-based specialist supported housing providers.
That publication identified recurring issues involving inadequate capital reserves, poor contingency planning, weak governance, long-term inflation-linked lease liabilities and financial structures that could not withstand foreseeable risks.
Six years later, the regulator was still identifying serious problems within parts of the same market.
These were not concerns invented by property investment companies attempting to discredit their competitors. They were findings published by the statutory regulator responsible for overseeing registered social housing providers in England.
Investors can read the original reports directly:
- Regulator of Social Housing: Focus Report, 10 April 2025
- Regulator of Social Housing: Lease-Based Providers of Specialised Supported Housing, 4 April 2019
We would encourage anyone considering a guaranteed rent investment in this particular sector to read both publications carefully.
Why We Do Not Develop Social Housing, Affordable Housing or Temporary Accommodation Investments
At Foot Forward Properties, we recognise that social housing, affordable housing and temporary accommodation all serve genuine needs across the United Kingdom.
There are reputable housing associations, local authorities and specialist organisations providing essential accommodation to people who require housing assistance. We are not suggesting that every provider operating in these sectors is financially unstable or that every lease-based investment is unsuitable.
However, from a property development and investment perspective, these are simply not markets we wish to enter.
One of our concerns is the number of property investment companies that appear to have entered these sectors primarily because guaranteed rental agreements have become attractive marketing tools.
Investors are presented with glossy brochures, impressive computer-generated property images, attractive projected yields and five-year or ten-year agreements that supposedly remove all responsibility from the landlord.
Yet behind the marketing material, the financial arrangements can be considerably more complicated.
Some providers rely heavily on continuing payments from local authorities, housing benefit arrangements, accommodation contracts or occupancy assumptions. Others may have accepted rental commitments that leave very little room for unexpected expenditure.
If the organisation responsible for paying rent loses a contract, experiences prolonged vacancies or encounters financial difficulties, the landlord’s position can quickly change.
There is also the question of what happens when the agreement comes to an end.
An investor might have paid a substantial premium for a property marketed with guaranteed rent, only to discover that the underlying bricks-and-mortar value is considerably lower than the original investment.
If the tenant leaves, the landlord may be left with a property requiring refurbishment, a different management arrangement and an entirely new rental strategy.
This is particularly relevant where properties have been adapted for a specific accommodation contract, with limited consideration given to their future value or alternative uses.
We would rather avoid building an investment proposition around these uncertainties in the first place.
The Growing Problem With Property Sourcing Fees and Undelivered Investments
Another issue investors need to consider is the difference between purchasing a property directly from an experienced developer and paying a sourcing company to introduce them to an investment opportunity.
There is nothing inherently wrong with property sourcing. Reputable sourcing agents can provide a useful service by identifying suitable properties, carrying out initial research and introducing investors to opportunities that meet their requirements.
However, we have become increasingly concerned by accounts of investors paying substantial upfront fees to companies that subsequently fail to deliver what was originally promised.
Investors have described experiences involving thousands of pounds paid for supposedly exclusive property deals, followed by considerable delays, changes to the investment figures or properties that never reach the stage originally advertised.
Others describe paying introduction fees to companies offering guaranteed rental arrangements, only to discover that the company receiving the sourcing fee has no ongoing responsibility for the rental payments.
These reported experiences do not establish that every company involved has acted unlawfully. They do, however, demonstrate why investors should investigate the commercial arrangements carefully before transferring substantial sums.
The sourcing business may have already received its commission before the investor earns a single pound of rental income.
Meanwhile, responsibility for the property, its condition, financing and future income remains with the investor and whichever third-party organisation has agreed to operate it.
The interests of the sourcing company and investor are not necessarily aligned.
If a business earns its income primarily by selling investment opportunities, it may have a commercial incentive to advertise high yields, attractive projected valuations and appealing rental guarantees. Those claims still need to be supported by evidence.
Investors should establish exactly what they are paying for, when the fee becomes payable, what the sourcing company is contractually required to deliver and what happens if the proposed investment falls through.
It is also sensible to investigate the company’s trading history, financial position, directors and previous developments.
A polished website, an expensive office and an impressive marketing campaign do not establish that a company has successfully delivered the types of investment it is advertising.
At Foot Forward Properties, we do not charge investors separate property sourcing fees for our own developments.
We are the developer, rather than an intermediary simply introducing investors to somebody else’s project.
Our team identifies the property, manages the acquisition and refurbishment, coordinates the development and works with the specialist provider responsible for operating the completed care or education facility.
Investors deal directly with the organisation responsible for delivering the development, rather than paying an introduction fee to a business that may disappear from the process once the property has been purchased.
A Five-Year Guaranteed Rent Agreement Is Not the Same as Financial Security
One of the biggest misconceptions within property investment is that a long lease automatically makes an investment secure.
A five-year agreement may give the investor contractual rights to receive rent for five years. However, the lease itself does not provide the money required to make those payments.
If a company agrees to pay £30,000 annually in rent, the investor should understand how that company intends to generate the income required to meet the obligation.
Does the company have a dependable source of income? Is the rental commitment financially sustainable? Has sufficient allowance been made for maintenance, management, staffing, vacancies and inflation?
Most importantly, does the organisation have sufficient financial resources to continue paying rent if its original assumptions prove incorrect?
We have seen property investments advertised with exceptionally high NET yields, sometimes reaching 16% or more, accompanied by promises that the income is guaranteed.
Such figures should invite closer investigation, not automatic excitement.
An unusually high promised return does not mean the underlying business can afford to deliver it.
When a company offers more rent than the property or service can sustainably support, the investor is not necessarily receiving a better investment. They may simply be accepting greater financial risk.
At Foot Forward Properties, we would much rather offer investors a return supported by detailed financial calculations than advertise an inflated yield that looks fantastic until the payments stop.
Our Rental Yields Are Calculated Using a Sustainable Rent Model
One of the biggest differences between Foot Forward Property Investments and companies advertising unusually high guaranteed rental returns is how we calculate the income our investors receive.
Our rental yields are not figures plucked out of thin air to make an investment look attractive.
They are established through detailed financial calculations using our sustainable rent model, which assesses the long-term viability of the property, the specialist care or education service operating from it, and the provider’s ability to meet its rental commitments.
Before agreeing to a rental figure, we must establish that the provider can afford to pay it consistently over the duration of the lease.
This means accounting for anticipated operating income, staffing costs, regulatory requirements, maintenance, management expenditure and the financial demands associated with running a specialist care or education service.
Importantly, our calculations must also make allowances for periods when the property is not operating at full capacity.
We do not calculate rental affordability on the assumption that every available placement will remain occupied throughout the year.
Instead, our sustainable rent model incorporates allowances for void periods, helping ensure that temporary vacancies do not automatically affect the provider’s ability to meet its rental obligations to investors.
For example, a children’s residential care home might have the capacity to accommodate several children, but that does not mean every placement will remain occupied every day of the year.
Children may move between placements, local authority requirements can change and a provider may experience periods where individual rooms are temporarily vacant.
Our financial calculations must account for those realities rather than simply assuming maximum occupancy and calculating rent against the highest possible revenue.
There would be very little sense in structuring a care home investment around a rental commitment that only works when every placement is continuously occupied.
That would place unnecessary pressure on the provider and, in turn, expose the investor to greater financial risk.
Why Sinking Funds and Void Funds Matter
Another important part of our sustainable rent model is the provision of sinking funds and void funds.
These are financial reserves designed to help the operator manage the property and service over the long term, rather than relying on every pound of operating income being immediately available.
A sinking fund provides an allowance for unexpected expenditure, future capital requirements and larger costs that may arise during the operation of the property.
Void funds are intended to help absorb fluctuations in occupancy, providing additional financial flexibility when individual placements become vacant or when there are temporary gaps in operating income.
Both are important considerations when developing specialist care and education property investments, where staffing, safeguarding, regulatory compliance and operational expenditure must continue even when occupancy temporarily reduces.
We believe these allowances should form part of the original financial assessment, rather than being treated as problems to address only after they arise.
Our objective is to ensure that the rental commitments made to investors remain sustainable even when the operator experiences temporary voids, increased costs or unexpected operational challenges.
Under our lease arrangements, an individual placement becoming vacant does not automatically reduce the contractual rent payable to the investor.
The operator remains responsible for meeting its agreed rental obligations, even when the occupancy levels within the building change.
This is particularly important because the investor’s income should not be calculated on the assumption that every placement will remain filled indefinitely.
The purpose of incorporating realistic void assumptions and financial reserves is to reduce the risk of those obligations becoming unaffordable.
No sinking fund or reserve arrangement can eliminate every financial risk or guarantee that an operator will always be able to pay. However, calculating rental commitments around realistic operating conditions is considerably more responsible than assuming every property will operate at full capacity indefinitely.
Why We Do Not Simply Offer the Highest Possible Yield
Our children’s care home and adult residential care investments are structured around 12% NET annual rental yields, while our SEN school investments offer 10% NET annual rental yields, both with CPI-linked annual increases under the agreed lease terms.
These figures are supported by our financial modelling and assessment of the underlying operation. They are not simply selected because they look impressive in a sales brochure.
We must consider whether the provider can sustainably afford its rental commitments while still retaining sufficient income to fund staff, deliver suitable care or education, comply with regulatory requirements and maintain appropriate financial reserves.
There is no benefit in offering investors 16% NET if paying that amount leaves the operator financially exposed whenever occupancy falls or costs increase.
We would rather calculate a sustainable rental yield that the provider is financially equipped to pay over the long term than promise investors an unrealistic return that puts the entire operation under unnecessary financial pressure.
That approach is central to why we concentrate on specialist regulated care and education properties, rather than following the wider guaranteed rent investment trend.
Why Regulation, Statutory Responsibilities and Long-Term Demand Matter to Us
The distinction between the property sectors we avoid and those we develop is not simply whether public money is involved.
After all, social housing, children’s residential care, adult social care and special educational needs provision can all involve funding from public bodies.
The difference lies in the nature of the service being delivered, the operating arrangements, the regulatory requirements and how rental obligations are funded.
Our specialist care and education investments are developed for specific purposes, with a specialist provider already identified and contracted as part of the development model.
These are not properties purchased speculatively in the hope that an accommodation contractor will later agree to rent them.
Instead, our developments are designed around the requirements of regulated care and education services, taking into consideration bedroom sizes, communal areas, accessibility, safeguarding, staff facilities, planning requirements and the operational needs of the provider.
The underlying demand is also connected to established statutory responsibilities.
Local authorities have legal duties concerning children in their care, adult social care authorities must assess and meet eligible care needs under the relevant legislation, and local authorities have specific responsibilities concerning provision within Education, Health and Care Plans for children and young people with special educational needs.
These responsibilities do not disappear simply because the economy weakens or the wider property market experiences a downturn.
They do not, however, amount to a government guarantee of occupancy, lease payments or investment returns. The provider must still operate successfully, obtain and maintain the appropriate registrations and receive sufficient income to meet its contractual commitments.
We believe the combination of a clearly defined service, established regulatory oversight, contractual arrangements and demonstrable local demand creates a more suitable foundation for the type of property investments we develop.
Children’s Care Home Investments: Regulated by Ofsted and Supported by Statutory Responsibilities
One of our principal areas of investment development is children’s residential care homes.
These are specialist properties designed to provide accommodation and care for vulnerable children who cannot live with their families and require professional support.
Unlike general accommodation schemes, children’s homes in England operate within a specific regulatory framework administered by Ofsted.
The Care Standards Act 2000 requires children’s homes to be registered, while the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 establish requirements concerning the quality of care, safeguarding, leadership and suitability of the accommodation.
Ofsted assesses applications for registration, monitors providers and inspects registered services. Operating a children’s home without the required registration is a criminal offence.
There is also an established statutory foundation for demand.
Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities have duties concerning the welfare and accommodation of children in their care.
Those responsibilities continue regardless of wider economic conditions, although they do not guarantee that a particular home will receive placements.
At Foot Forward Properties, our children’s care home investments are developed around these requirements.
Our team identifies suitable properties, manages the acquisition and refurbishment, and prepares the buildings for use by our specialist care provider.
The provider is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the home, including recruitment, safeguarding, staffing, regulatory compliance and the delivery of care.
For investors, our model provides 100% freehold ownership of the property, together with a contracted specialist operator and a 20-year lease.
Our children’s care home investments are structured to offer 12% NET annual rental yield, with annual CPI-linked increases, subject to the agreed lease provisions and the tenant meeting its obligations.
We prefer this model because the property has a clearly identified purpose, the operator is known before the investment proceeds and the accommodation must meet specific standards to deliver the intended service.
Adult Residential and Complex Needs Care: Why We Focus on CQC-Regulated Services
Adult residential and complex needs care is another area in which we have considerable interest.
These properties accommodate adults who require specialist support, sometimes involving complex physical disabilities, learning disabilities, behavioural needs or substantial day-to-day assistance.
We focus on residential care arrangements where the relevant services must be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, organisations providing regulated adult health or social care activities in England must hold the appropriate registration.
The CQC assesses whether providers can meet the required standards and monitors their performance.
This is an important distinction from accommodation arrangements where a property is simply leased to a housing organisation and care is provided separately.
A care service being CQC-regulated does not automatically make the property’s lease financially secure. However, it provides an established framework concerning the provider’s responsibilities, the standard of care and the ongoing operation of the service.
Our developments are designed around the needs of the eventual residents and the operator.
Depending on the property and intended service, this may involve specialist bathrooms, accessible accommodation, sensory rooms, therapy facilities, staff accommodation and adaptations to support individuals with complex care requirements.
There is no benefit in developing an unsuitable property simply because it is cheap.
For the investor, our adult residential and complex needs care investments typically provide a 12% NET annual rental yield, a 20-year lease and CPI-linked rental increases, with the specialist provider responsible for agreed operational, maintenance and repair obligations.
We believe there is considerable value in developing properties that are genuinely fit for purpose, rather than acquiring ordinary residential accommodation and hoping a care provider can somehow make it work.
SEN School Property Investments: Supported by Education Legislation and Regulatory Oversight
Special educational needs (SEN) school investments represent the third specialist sector in which we concentrate our long-term lease developments.
These properties provide educational environments for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
There is a significant difference between buying an ordinary commercial building and hoping to secure an educational tenant, and developing a property specifically around the requirements of a specialist education provider.
Under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, local authorities must secure the special educational provision specified in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, subject to the statutory exceptions.
This creates a legal obligation to arrange suitable educational provision for eligible children and young people, although it does not guarantee referrals or funding to any individual independent school.
Independent special schools are also subject to registration and regulatory requirements administered through the Department for Education, with Ofsted responsible for inspecting relevant schools.
Registration and approval under section 41 are separate matters, and not every independent special school has section 41 approval.
Our SEN school developments are designed to provide specialist educational accommodation, often including classrooms, therapy rooms, sensory environments, outdoor facilities and appropriate safeguarding arrangements.
The buildings are developed by Foot Forward Properties before being operated by our specialist education provider under the agreed lease.
Our SEN school investments offer 10% NET annual rental yield, with annual CPI-linked increases over a 20-year lease term, subject to the tenant fulfilling the contractual obligations.
The investor retains freehold ownership throughout the lease, while the education provider takes responsibility for the school operation, staffing, registration, education delivery and agreed property maintenance requirements.
Again, we are not simply selling an ordinary property with an attractive lease attached. We are developing a specialist asset intended to accommodate a regulated service.
Why Our Care and Education Investment Model Is Different
One of the problems we see within the wider guaranteed rent investment market is the tendency to treat the lease as the investment itself.
A company signs a lease, promises an attractive rental figure and then uses that promise to justify a substantial premium on the property.
We take a different approach.
At Foot Forward Properties, our investors purchase the freehold property as part of a development arrangement. We then manage the refurbishment and deliver the finished building to our contracted specialist care or education provider.
Our investors benefit from a defined development process, an identified operator and an agreed rental structure rather than relying on a promise that an unknown tenant will be found once the development has finished.
We also calculate our rental obligations through our sustainable rent protocol, taking into account realistic occupancy assumptions, operational expenditure, sinking funds, void funds and the financial resources needed to keep the service running.
The rent must make financial sense in relation to the capital invested, the development costs, the service being operated and the provider’s anticipated ability to meet its commitments.
There is little point promising an investor an extraordinarily high return if the company paying the rent cannot generate enough money to sustain it.
Our investment arrangements also include fixed refurbishment pricing on qualifying developments, with contractual provisions establishing when rental income becomes payable, including where certain development or registration delays arise.
For our care and education investments, first rental payments are contractually scheduled to begin from month six under the agreed documentation.
This means investors are not simply waiting indefinitely for a property to become operational before rental obligations begin.
However, the ability to enforce a contractual payment obligation remains dependent on the financial position of the party responsible for paying it.
Twenty-Year Leases, Freehold Ownership and Long-Term Accountability
Another reason we focus on children’s care homes, adult residential care facilities and SEN schools is that we are developing assets intended for long-term specialist use.
Our investment properties are offered with 20-year lease arrangements to a specialist operator, with annual rental increases linked to CPI.
The leases are structured so that the operator takes responsibility for internal repairs, maintenance and agreed operational liabilities, with investors generally retaining responsibility for buildings insurance.
Unlike an investment based on buying a single room within a larger development, our investors purchase and retain 100% ownership of the freehold property.
There are no fractional ownership arrangements, no pooled property investments and no loan note schemes within our property investment model.
The investor owns the asset.
We believe that distinction matters, particularly when comparing direct freehold property ownership with schemes where an investor contributes £10,000 or £50,000 to an arrangement without receiving direct ownership of the underlying property.
Such arrangements can have very different legal rights and risk exposures, even when marketed using phrases such as asset-backed or guaranteed income.
It is also why we encourage investors to examine the lease, the financial position of the operator and the underlying asset value rather than focusing solely on the advertised percentage return.
A 20-year lease provides a longer contractual term than a five-year agreement, but the longer duration must still be supported by financially sustainable operating arrangements.
Our Track Record Matters More Than an Attractive Sales Brochure
Foot Forward Property Investments has operated in property development and management for over 34 years.
Across our wider business, we have completed more than 450 HMO developments and developed over £135 million of property, including our specialist care and education investments.
Within our care and education division, we have developed a model working with the same specialist provider across more than 50 care property projects at various stages of development, registration and operation.
This experience matters because delivering a regulated care property is considerably more complicated than simply purchasing a building and finding a tenant.
Our team works across property acquisition, architectural design, planning, construction, compliance and project management, with specialist operators responsible for care delivery, education and the relevant registrations.
We also have a direct commercial interest in the specialist provider through our directors’ ownership involvement.
That alignment gives us a particular interest in the long-term viability of the services occupying the properties we develop.
We are not interested in developing hundreds of unsuitable properties simply to generate sales volume.
Our objective is to provide investors with specialist assets where the property, operator and rental structure make sense together.
We have also invested in property ourselves for many years, which influences the way we approach pricing, development and long-term asset ownership.
Regulated Does Not Mean Government-Guaranteed
There is one distinction we believe every investor should understand.
A property operating within a regulated care or education sector is not automatically a government-backed investment.
Ofsted does not guarantee an investor’s rent. The CQC does not guarantee a care provider’s financial performance. The Department for Education does not guarantee that a particular independent school will remain occupied or financially viable.
These organisations oversee the services within their respective responsibilities, rather than underwriting private property leases.
Similarly, local authorities having statutory responsibilities to provide care and education does not mean they are directly guaranteeing a private landlord’s income.
For this reason, we distinguish between a service supported by statutory demand and an investment carrying an actual government financial guarantee.
The two are not the same.
What we favour is the combination of a specialist property, an established statutory service, regulatory oversight, an identified operator, realistic rental commitments, properly considered financial reserves and long-term contractual arrangements.
These factors do not eliminate investment risk, but they provide a clear basis for evaluating it.
Why We Are Publicly Distancing Ourselves From Questionable Property Investment Schemes
The fact that we are openly discussing these concerns should make one thing very clear: Foot Forward Property Investments is fully aware of the questionable property investment schemes being advertised across the internet, and we are deliberately distancing ourselves from them as far as possible.
We have spent over 34 years developing and managing property investments, and we have absolutely no intention of compromising that track record by following the latest investment trend simply because it offers an opportunity to generate quick sales.
We regularly see companies advertising supposedly guaranteed rental returns, unusually high NET yields, short-term lease arrangements and investments where the underlying asset ownership is not always clear.
Some of these opportunities are marketed by intermediaries with limited development experience, while others involve financial structures that investors may not fully understand until something goes wrong.
We are bringing these concerns to light because we believe investors deserve to understand the difference between a carefully structured, long-term property investment and an arrangement built around an attractive rental promise.
Our offering is designed to provide long-term financial security through freehold property ownership, sustainable rental calculations, established specialist operators and 20-year lease arrangements. It is not a short-term speculative investment designed around inflated yields and questionable promises.
Our focus on regulated children’s care homes, adult residential and complex needs facilities, and SEN school developments is deliberate.
These properties serve established care and education needs, operate within recognised regulatory frameworks and are developed around the requirements of our specialist provider.
We also recognise that the financial health of the operator is fundamental to the investor’s income.
That is why our sustainable rent model accounts for realistic occupancy levels, operating expenditure, sinking funds and void allowances before rental commitments are agreed.
We do not believe an investor should have to rely on unrealistic occupancy assumptions or the continued success of an intermediary whose involvement ends once a sourcing fee has been collected.
There is a substantial difference between marketing an investment as secure and actually putting the financial, contractual and operational arrangements in place to support that objective.
No private property investment is completely risk-free, but our approach is designed to reduce avoidable risks rather than conceal them behind the phrase guaranteed rent.
We are comfortable discussing the weaknesses we see in other investment structures because we want investors to understand exactly how our own model differs.
For Foot Forward Properties, this is about protecting the long-term interests of our investors, maintaining the reputation we have built over more than three decades and continuing to develop properties that make commercial sense for everyone involved.
We are interested in building sustainable property investments intended to deliver income over the next 20 years, not selling investors a five-year promise that might become worthless long before the agreement expires.
Why We Will Continue to Avoid the Guaranteed Rent Bandwagon
We have watched property investment trends come and go over more than three decades.
There will always be new schemes promising investors the benefits of property ownership without any of the responsibilities, often marketed with increasingly ambitious returns.
Some will be operated responsibly. Others may fail because the underlying financial arrangements simply do not support the promises being made.
The Regulator of Social Housing’s findings are a reminder that even organisations operating within publicly funded housing sectors can experience severe financial difficulties when their lease arrangements and operating costs become unsustainable.
The regulator’s reports from April 2019 and April 2025 show that concerns around the long-term financial viability of certain lease-based specialised supported housing arrangements have persisted for years.
Meanwhile, the accounts emerging from investors who report paying substantial sourcing fees without receiving the developments or investment opportunities they expected provide another reason to investigate who is actually responsible for delivering an investment.
A sourcing agent might be excellent at selling an opportunity, but that does not automatically mean they have the experience, resources or contractual responsibility to deliver the development or maintain the promised rental income.
At Foot Forward Properties, we take responsibility for the developments we undertake.
We are not selling introductions to unknown operators or collecting separate sourcing fees before handing investors over to somebody else.
Our long-term leased investment offering remains focused on regulated children’s residential care, adult residential and complex needs care, and specialist SEN school properties.
We believe these sectors offer a clearer relationship between the property, the services it accommodates, the operator responsible for delivering those services and the statutory responsibilities supporting demand.
Our commitment to sustainable rental calculations, realistic occupancy assumptions and provision for sinking funds and void funds reflects our belief that the financial stability of the operator is directly relevant to the security of the investor’s income.
We also believe our long-standing development experience, in-house capabilities, direct relationship with our specialist provider and ownership of property investments ourselves provide an important distinction from companies that simply arrange investments in exchange for an introduction fee.
We are bringing these matters to investors’ attention because we want to make our position absolutely clear.
We do not want Foot Forward Property Investments associated with questionable guaranteed rent schemes, speculative short-term rental arrangements, unsupported promises or investment structures where investors do not clearly understand what they own and who is responsible for paying them.
We develop physical property assets, structure long-term lease arrangements with our specialist provider and calculate rental commitments around realistic operating costs and financial reserves.
For investors looking for long-term, passive property investments, we would much rather demonstrate how an investment is structured, who operates it, how the rental income is calculated, what reserves are allowed for and what asset the investor owns than simply put the word guaranteed in large letters on a brochure.
A property investment should make financial sense before anyone promises the investor a return.
To learn more about our specialist care and education property investments, including our children’s care home, adult residential care and SEN school development opportunities, visit:
Explore Our Fully Managed Care and SEN School Property Investments
Our team can explain our available developments, 20-year lease structure, freehold ownership arrangements and sustainable rental calculations in more detail.
Investment information: The yields and rental arrangements described are those offered under our specified investment models and are subject to individual contracts, assumptions and counterparty risk. Rental payments, capital growth, operator performance and future occupancy are not guaranteed by the UK Government or regulatory bodies. Independent legal, tax and financial advice should be obtained before investing.