2 weeks ago | 4 comments
The Private Rented Sector (PRS) Database “must not be viewed as an administrative register” but as a tool to empower tenants, a group of organisations has claimed.
In a letter to Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook, the Renters’ Reform Coalition and 30 other organisations have urged the government to expand the PRS Database to include more information, including data on rents charged by landlords.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, all landlords will need to sign up to the database, which will include information about their properties that tenants can access.
If a landlord lets or advertises a property without first registering it on the database, they could face a civil penalty of up to £7,000. Providing fraudulent information to the database could result in a fine of up to £40,000.
In the letter, the organisations claim the PRS Database registration fees cannot be “too small for landlords”.
The letter says: “The PRS Database should not be viewed simply as an administrative register, it will be critical to ensuring the public feels the impact of the Renters’ Rights Act. It is a cornerstone of the government’s ambition to create a fairer private rented sector, by empowering renters, supporting enforcement and improving public understanding of conditions for renters.
“However, if the Database fails to collect the right data, if the registration fees for landlords are too small, or if the database is not in fact publicly accessible, it risks becoming a bureaucratic hoop, rather than the transformative tool renters’ need in order to exercise their new rights”.
As previously reported by Property118, the government says the PRS Database fee will be “fair and proportionate” and has hinted at combining the registration process for the PRS Database and the Ombudsman, but has not confirmed whether landlords will need to pay separate fees for each.
According to the government’s Renters’ Rights Act roadmap, the PRS Database will include, at a minimum:
However, the Renters Reform Coalition urge the government to expand the information included in the PRS Database, including rent data and eviction.
The letter said: “The Database must require landlords to record all evictions and the grounds on which they were carried out, in order to be able enforce the new legislation. This could be streamlined by enabling
landlords to fill out a notice for possession via their account on the Database. Transparency around the use of new possession grounds introduced by the Act will be essential for identifying and preventing breaches of the legislation.
“For example, where a landlord has evicted tenants in order to sell a property, a publicly accessible record of the use of this ground and whether the property is currently occupied may be the only practical way for previous or new tenants to determine whether the landlord has broken the 12-month restriction on letting the property”.
The letter adds: “Inclusion of rent data in the Database would also provide a significantly more reliable set of data than the market listings currently used by the First-tier Tribunal for rent adjudications. Access to comprehensive data on actual rents is essential following the abolition of rental bidding wars: while this reform is strongly welcomed, there is a risk that some landlords may respond by increasing speculative advertised rents, which in turn could lead to artificial rent inflation if validated by the tribunal.
“Publishing this data would create an invaluable source of information for renters, researchers and the public sector. It would improve understanding of affordability pressures, help identify areas experiencing excessive rent inflation and enable the development of detailed tools and services to support renters”.
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
NRLA calls for landlord tax reform to boost the PRS
2 weeks ago | 4 comments
4 weeks ago | 17 comments
1 month ago | 19 comments