Case Study
A written account of how a fourteen-unit rent-to-rent portfolio was assembled. The sequence, the operating detail, the errors and what they cost. Every figure on this page belongs to this portfolio and to no other.
Wilton Property Partners
Sequence
The record, period by period, from the first agreement to fourteen units.
Months 1 – 2
Nothing was acquired in this period. The work was market study and relationships. Rent-to-rent is an operating business before it is a property business, and the operating detail has to be understood before capital moves.
The numbers were learned first. Achievable nightly rates by district, occupancy through the seasons, turnaround and cleaning cost per stay, the true margin once platform fees and voids are taken out. Analysis was published openly, which brought introductions to landlords and to people with capital sitting idle.
Two months in there was no portfolio and no expenditure. There was a standing in the market, which is what the next step required.
Months 3 – 4
Setting up a rent-to-rent unit costs money. Deposit, first month to the landlord, furnishing, compliance, listing photography. The first tranche was assembled and committed against a written plan rather than a conversation.
What was put in front of the party providing it was a deal file. Comparable rates, occupancy assumptions with the downside modelled, the full cost line, the deployment schedule and the terms on which they could exit. That is the standard we hold to.
Months 5 – 6
A two-bedroom apartment taken on a rent-to-rent agreement. A fixed rent is paid to the landlord each month whatever the unit does, and the unit is then let to guests on the booking platforms. The landlord holds a guaranteed income and no management burden. The operator holds the difference, and the risk that goes with it.
This is the whole mechanism. It requires far less capital than purchase, and it reaches income in weeks rather than years. It is a business, and it is only as good as the terms of the agreement and the quality of the operation.
Months 7 – 12
One unit trading with a booking history and a review record changes the conversation. Landlords take the proposal seriously. Funding is discussed against evidence rather than intent.
Every unit after the first ran the same order of operations. Identify the property, agree terms with the landlord, commit the setup cost, furnish and list inside two to three weeks, then hand the day-to-day over to the cleaning schedule, the messaging templates and the pricing rules.
The change that mattered was structural. Doing the work personally does not scale, and a portfolio built that way stops at three or four units. Written procedures, a cleaning team and automated guest communication are what allow the count to keep rising.
Year two onward
The portfolio reached fourteen units across five London districts. Gross takings above £50,000 in a strong month, with net above £16,000 once rent, utilities, cleaning, consumables, platform fees, insurance and a maintenance reserve are taken out. Those are this portfolio's figures in a strong month, not an average and not a forecast.
Day-to-day operation sits with a team. The unit-level detail is set out in the table below, including the weakest unit.
The numbers
One strong month across all fourteen units, unit by unit, with the costs left in. Select any figure for the detail behind it.
| Unit | District | Type | Nightly | Occ. | Gross | Costs | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Greenwich | 1-bed flat | £100 | 75% | £2,250 | £1,500 | £750 |
| Nightly rate: £100 | Occupancy: 75% | The weakest unit in the portfolio. Reliable, budget-positioned, and carried by weekday business demand from Canary Wharf. | |||||||
| 2 | Greenwich | 1-bed flat | £105 | 76% | £2,394 | £1,544 | £850 |
| Nightly rate: £105 | Occupancy: 76% | Compact unit close to DLR. Consistent bookings year-round. | |||||||
| 3 | Greenwich | 1-bed flat | £100 | 78% | £2,340 | £1,480 | £860 |
| Nightly rate: £100 | Occupancy: 78% | Close to the O2 and Maritime Greenwich. Event-driven peaks. | |||||||
| 4 | Greenwich | 2-bed flat | £120 | 76% | £2,736 | £1,836 | £900 |
| Nightly rate: £120 | Occupancy: 76% | Two-bed pulls families and small groups. Solid all-season performer. | |||||||
| 5 | Greenwich | 2-bed flat | £125 | 78% | £2,925 | £1,925 | £1,000 |
| Nightly rate: £125 | Occupancy: 78% | Portfolio-average unit. Balanced returns across the year. | |||||||
| 6 | Greenwich | 2-bed flat | £115 | 80% | £2,760 | £1,810 | £950 |
| Nightly rate: £115 | Occupancy: 80% | Higher-occupancy Greenwich unit. Dynamic pricing well-tuned. | |||||||
| 7 | Greenwich | 2-bed flat | £110 | 77% | £2,541 | £1,691 | £850 |
| Nightly rate: £110 | Occupancy: 77% | Seventh of the Greenwich cluster. Benefits from shared cleaning logistics with the others. | |||||||
| 8 | Royal Wharf | 1-bed flat | £140 | 76% | £3,192 | £2,092 | £1,100 |
| Nightly rate: £140 | Occupancy: 76% | Modern development with river views. Attracts business travellers and Canary Wharf contractors. | |||||||
| 9 | Royal Wharf | 2-bed flat | £150 | 75% | £3,375 | £2,275 | £1,100 |
| Nightly rate: £150 | Occupancy: 75% | Two-bed premium unit. Consistent corporate stays. | |||||||
| 10 | Royal Wharf | 2-bed flat | £155 | 77% | £3,581 | £2,431 | £1,150 |
| Nightly rate: £155 | Occupancy: 77% | High-floor view uplift. Longer average stays than 1-bed units. | |||||||
| 11 | Royal Wharf | 2-bed flat | £145 | 78% | £3,393 | £2,243 | £1,150 |
| Nightly rate: £145 | Occupancy: 78% | Fourth and final Royal Wharf unit. Full cluster lets us run the building as one operation. | |||||||
| 12 | Kensington | 1-bed flat | £220 | 72% | £4,752 | £2,252 | £2,500 |
| Nightly rate: £220 | Occupancy: 72% | Best-performing unit in the portfolio. Premium postcode, high nightly rate, affluent international guest base. | |||||||
| 13 | Camden | 2-bed flat | £160 | 76% | £3,648 | £2,148 | £1,500 |
| Nightly rate: £160 | Occupancy: 76% | Camden Market + music-venue demand. Strong weekends, steady weekdays. | |||||||
| 14 | Primrose Hill | 2-bed flat | £180 | 78% | £4,212 | £2,412 | £1,800 |
| Nightly rate: £180 | Occupancy: 78% | Premium North London location. Attracts families and longer leisure stays. | |||||||
| Portfolio total | £44,099 | £28,139 | £15,960 | ||||
What went wrong
A case study that reports only the good months is of no use to anyone. Select a card for the cost and the correction.
Guest correspondence, cleaning schedules, listing management, landlord relations and funding conversations, all held by one person.
Response times slipped, and guest reviews followed them down. Recovering a review position is slower and more expensive than protecting it. The portfolio came close to being wound up over workload alone.
The correction
Assign guest correspondence to someone else from the first unit, even a few hours a day. This is the point most portfolios stall at, and it stalls them well before the numbers stop working.
A unit that modelled well and operated badly. Poor layout, awkward access, and demand that did not match the assumption.
Occupancy below the model, more guest complaints, higher maintenance, a thinner margin. The agreement was exited after several months. The setup capital and the time were not recovered.
The correction
Selection is the decision that carries the most weight, and it is the one most easily rushed. Layout, access, genuine demand drivers within walking distance, and a landlord who understands and supports the arrangement in writing.
The whole operation run from a phone. No written checklists, no message templates, no maintenance protocol. Every turnaround handled from memory.
Inconsistent stays. Missed items on turnaround, restocks forgotten, check-in instructions sent late. Small failures, and they show up directly in the review score, which sets the rate.
The correction
Write the procedures before the first unit goes live. Message templates, cleaning checklists, a pricing rule, a maintenance protocol. The documentation is the asset. Properties are plugged into it.
Client outcomes
Each of these is one person's account of their own portfolio. They are set out plainly and they are not a projection of what any other client should expect.
Ihab began with no property experience. Working to the same deal-file standard set out above, he assembled £25,000 within five weeks, took on two units and had both trading shortly afterwards. His account, his figures.
Dylan built to five units and reports £12,000 as his strongest month across them. He attributes it to selection discipline, pricing that moves with demand, and consistent operation rather than to any single unit. His account, his figures.
Andrew built his portfolio around a full-time commitment elsewhere, which is how most of our clients work. He assembled £13,000 and secured three units without leaving what he was already doing. His account, his figures.
Fourteen units is not the objective for everybody, and it should not be. Elite Kleans holds one unit reporting £2,200 gross a month, operated alongside other commitments. A single well-chosen unit is a legitimate position to stop at. Their account, their figures.
Illustration
Set a unit count and a net figure per unit to see the arithmetic. It is arithmetic and nothing more. It is not a forecast, and it carries no assumption that any unit will perform.
Enter your details to open it. We will send you nothing you have not asked for.
Your details are held in confidence.
The figures you enter are your own. Nothing here is a projection, a recommendation or a statement of what a unit will return. Returns are not guaranteed and capital is at risk.
Method
The order is the point. Taken out of sequence, each stage becomes considerably harder. Select a stage for the detail.
Before capital is committed or a landlord is approached, there has to be a reason for either party to take you seriously.
Rent-to-rent requires a deposit, a first month, furnishing and compliance. It requires far less than purchase, and it is not nothing.
With terms agreed and the unit furnished, the work becomes operational. This is where the margin is won or lost.
The Wilton training session sets out the method in full, in the order it is worked through.
Request an invitationThe firm
Wilton Property Partners was founded by Terry Dwobeng. A law graduate from the University of Warwick and an incoming solicitor at Clifford Chance, who built a property portfolio worth over £4.7 million alongside his studies and the start of his career.
The portfolio was assembled in the hours a professional career leaves behind. There was no point at which he stepped out of the profession in order to do it, which is the reason the method above is written the way it is. It assumes your week is already full.
That is also why the errors are included. They were made under exactly the constraint you would be working within.
Wilton works with established professionals who have capital set aside and want a second income built alongside a career, not instead of one. We either teach you to run a rent-to-rent portfolio, or we source, set up and operate it for you. Which of the two suits you is the first thing we would establish.