Does the PRS Database penalise landlords with non-standard properties?

Unfortunately the whole point of the RRA is to create a “one size fits all” rental market as far as is possible. They have very reluctantly made one or two concessions like student HMOs, but in general it is extremely hostile to anything other than a traditional family-based whole property let in perpetuity, just like in the olden days. This is not an accident, it’s by design.

Having said that, I would just say that it’s let to 5 individual “households”, or whatever is the maximum occupancy the company will be using.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 05:26
Richard, I think the answer is buried in the reply they sent you — you just have to read it very literally.
“All private landlords operating assured or regulated tenancies should register on the service.”
That’s the whole scope. Assured, or regulated under the Rent Act. Nothing else.
A let to a company almost certainly isn’t either. Under s.1(1) of the Housing Act 1988 an assured tenancy needs an individual tenant occupying the property as their only or principal home. Your tenant is a company, and a company can’t occupy anything as its principal home. So on the face of it you’ve got a common law tenancy sitting outside the Housing Act altogether — which is also why it fell outside the Renters’ Rights Act changes in May.
If that’s right, the reason the form won’t let you answer the households question is that the form was never built for your tenancy. You’re trying to register something that isn’t in scope.
Which makes me a bit wary of the suggestion to just put down five households and move on. The penalty band for getting registration wrong and the penalty band for giving false or misleading information are not the same — the second is far higher, £40,000 as I understand it against £7,000. Declaring occupancy figures on a property that may not be registrable, on a form you can’t complete honestly, seems like the wrong end of that to be sitting at. I’d rather be able to show I asked the question and got a non-answer.
Worth knowing too that Propertymark have been saying company, high-rent and business arrangements are still subject to further regulations. So it isn’t settled, and an exemption today isn’t a guarantee for next year. But that’s a reason to keep an eye on it, not a reason to guess now.
Practically, I’d spend a small one-off fee getting your company let agreement looked at once and a written confirmation of its status. Annoying, and I take your point that it shouldn’t be necessary. But you register once and then it’s answered for as long as that arrangement runs, and you’ve got something in writing if it’s ever queried.
On your last point, I’m with you. Registration catches the people who were already going to comply. It was never going to catch the ones who won’t.
For the record I’m an inventory clerk rather than a landlord, so I’m looking at this from the paperwork side of the fence. Happy to be corrected by anyone who’s actually pushed a company let through the beta.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 22/09/2026 – 05:26
Thanks Peter – I did think of that, but potentially I’m stating an ‘untruth’ and it’s clear what the authorities think of that.

Reply to the comment left by [email protected] at 22/09/2026 – 07:03
Thanks Gemini….
Yes, I’m in agreement with you, but my whole point of wanting to test the system was to see what works and what doesn’t, so I wanted to push them on this and they seem to be hiding behind that old chestnut; “plausible deniability!”
However, I have their emails although I may indeed have to get it checked for the actual dbase. No rush – I’m in the southwest so have more than a year to wait!

You may not have to register that one at all. The duty in s.82 sits on a “residential landlord”, which s.63 of the Act defines as the landlord under an assured tenancy or a Rent Act tenancy. A company can’t hold an assured tenancy, because s.1(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 requires the tenant to be an individual. A genuine company let, where the company is the tenant and its staff are just occupiers, is outside the scheme as it stands.

I’d be careful with the “just put five households” idea. Knowingly giving the database a figure you know is wrong is an offence under s.92. Worth keeping an eye on it though, the government has a power in s.63(4) to widen what counts as a relevant tenancy later.

I let a property to two males, should I put down one or two households, I genuinely don’t know and I am not sure that the register should be advertising couples sexualities.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 22/09/2026 – 10:01
if a couple then 1 household, if 2 singles then 2.

But I’d actually email both and state that you are having to add this info to the mandated gov database. Make it known you do not want to ask (as nothing to do with you) and if they are angry upset by this then can they contact their MP.

About time all tenants know that its not the landlord that is demanding all this info, but the government.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 22/09/2026 – 05:26
surely if the LL is letting directly to a company (and not a direct tenant with a tenancy) then there is no requirement to enter the info on the database?

You do not have a residential tenancy APT agreement, I hope, but a contract with a company and therefore not a PRS landlord.
If you have had drafted and signed an APT agreement with the company get it changed now, even if it means you have to tell the company you have made a mistake.
You also, if have taken a deposit, do not have to have the deposit protected.

As has been said, this is not a tenancy that is covered by the Act, in fact from my reading of The Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026, it’s actually a breach of s4(2) to attempt to register it.