:
Why simplicity, certainty and energy security are forcing the question of whether more BTR schemes should be bills-included. By David Wilson, chief operating officer, LRG.
Until recently “bills included” only really applied in the student housing market. But in BTR, we are seeing increasing instances. At the point of taking up a tenancy, residents don’t just want to know what the rent is but how manageable life in that home will feel once the tenancy begins.
A bills-included offer is not so much about shaving pounds off a monthly outlay but about certainty, convenience and the appeal of having fewer moving parts in everyday life. One monthly payment, one point of contact and less paperwork at move-in and move-out can be a strong part of the attraction.
Back in 2022, Rightmove reported that enquiries for BTR homes with all bills included rose by 36% year across more than 20,000 listings and “bills included” became Rightmove’s top renter search term.
So what do residents want? Some want lower total living costs. Some want protection from volatility. Many want the administrative burden taken off their hands.
There is clear evidence that simplicity has real value. Zero Deposit research found that 41 per cent of tenants found organising and paying utility bills stressful, 55 per cent would prefer bills included in their rent and 44 per cent said they would be more likely to rent a home if bills were included. Rightmove’s 2025 lettings research also found that 27 per cent of tenants described finding renting extremely stressful, with rental fees and prices their main concern.
This reflects a wider change in how people think about housing. Residents increasingly compare their home not only with the wider private rented sector but with other service-led products. They expect clarity, ease and responsiveness. BTR has always traded on service as well as shelter and is well placed to respond to this changing need.
That said, I do not wish to overstate how widespread fully bills-included BTR is today. The offer is growing, but the evidence still suggests it is not standard. Currently many BTR schemes offer internet access within a fixed monthly rent but the majority do not include utility bills.
Understanding the current market and the capacity for change benefits from an understanding of three different approaches. The first is amenity and service costs being wrapped into a simple monthly figure. The second is selected household costs such as broadband or parking being included. The third is the much more ambitious zero bills model.
That third category is the most interesting from my point of view. Packaged Living and Aviva Investors announced in 2024 that Octopus Energy’s Zero Bills tariff would be offered initially on 48 qualifying homes across two BTR developments in Milton Keynes, with no energy bills for at least five years. Outside conventional BTR, Carpenters Yard in Epping has gone further, using a community microgrid to support 113 homes with no energy bills for at least five years. That is not a direct template for every BTR scheme, but it shows how quickly the discussion changes once energy strategy is designed into a place rather than bolted on later.
A bills-included proposition is easy to market and harder to underwrite. If an operator takes utility risk on a mediocre building with weak fabric, poor data and no meaningful control over consumption, it can become an expensive promise very quickly.
For that reason, this is much more than a marketing gimmick: it is a product that has to be earned through design, specification and operational discipline. It concerns building fabric matters, smart systems matter, consumption monitoring and fair-use policies matter. Inevitably, it works best for those schemes which have on-site renewables.
The affordability case can be separated from the sustainability case. Residents want lower volatility and easier budgeting; investors want credible progress on energy performance and operational emissions. And if a scheme can generate power on site, use it intelligently and rely on a building that is efficient in the first place, those two objectives meet.
While this is an interesting trend to observe and, where appropriate, respond to, I am not suggesting that every scheme should offer bills included, or that every market will reward it. Success or failure depends on pricing, resident demand and ability to provide. But in many circumstances, living without bills is becoming credible. The BTR operators who succeed will be those who match the promise to the building, the location and the numbers from the start.
