Call to scrap landlord licensing after database rollout
3 weeks ago | 7 comments
Government confirms public access rules for landlord licensing registers
12:01 AM, 23rd October 2026, 7 days ago
43
Categories:
The government claims councils must make licensing registers available to the public but are not required to publish them online.
Across England, councils operate selective licensing schemes and HMO licensing schemes requiring landlords in designated areas to obtain a licence for their rental properties.
The government claim they encourage councils to make licensing registers accessible to the public.
Accessibility requirements
In a written parliamentary question, Labour MP Feryal Clark asked the government to review the rules “to ensure that statutory landlord licensing registers are readily accessible to the public in digital form”.
In response, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said: “Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities are required to make their licensing registers available for inspection to the public.
“They must also provide a certified copy of their registers (or individual entry/entries from it) to anyone who requests it, subject to the payment of a fee.
“We encourage local authorities to consider accessibility requirements in meeting these duties and to ensure that any fees charged for this are reasonable and proportionate.
“There is no requirement for local authorities to publish their licensing registers. Where they choose to do so, they should consider any interactions with data protection legislation in respect of personal data contained within those registers.
“The government keeps licensing regulations under review.”
Landlord privacy
As previously reported by Property118, many landlords have raised privacy concerns over the PRS Database.
Under the PRS Database, landlords will be required to provide information about their properties, including the address, number of residents and bedrooms, as well as copies of gas, electricity and EPC documents.
The government told Property118 that data will be handled in line with data protection legislation, with further details to be announced in due course.
43 comments on this article
Learn from your peers’ experience
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Previous Article
When will H M Government wake up?Related Articles
Landlord database awareness trails Renters’ Rights Act understanding
1 week ago | 3 comments
Another council pauses landlord licensing after legal challenge
2 weeks ago | 3 comments
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2620
6:33 PM, 28th October 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 28/10/2026 – 18:07
Since the introduction of Labour’s Renters Rights Act, which are the easiest to get rid of if you need to get your property back?…family or sharers?
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 764 - Articles: 1
6:44 PM, 28th October 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 28/10/2026 – 18:33
sharers – as if one sharer puts in notice the tenancy ends for all. obv. u can chose to do a new tenancy with the retainers plus one new or not as u please!
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 40
6:49 PM, 28th October 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 28/10/2026 – 18:44
The irony…under RRA I cannot discriminate against families or children. Under HMO rules I cannot accept families. So legally a HMO allows me to discriminate.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 764 - Articles: 1
7:22 PM, 28th October 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by Paddy Murphy at 28/10/2026 – 18:49
correct. I asked David Smith property solicitor this question and he thought that to preserve our hmo planning usage we can lawfully refuse families.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2620
10:21 PM, 28th October 2026, About 22 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 28/10/2026 – 19:22
So if I have correctly understood this…(because I don’t currently have an HMO and others will know more about this than me).
Since Labour’s Renters Rights Act we don’t have the fall-back of no fault evictions and it can be harder to get tenants out. But apparently it’s easier to get sharers out of an HMO than it is to get a family with children out of a rental property. And presumably an HMO full of working people has more scope for raising rents in order to offset the licensing fees.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 764 - Articles: 1
11:37 PM, 28th October 2026, About 21 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 22:21
DONT NEC. AGREE WITH YOUR LAST SENTENCE. DEPENDS ON MARKET RENTS, NOT COSTS.
ALSO FAMILIES MORE LIKELY TO GET LEGAL AID FOR COUNTERCLAIMS ETC. AND JUDGES WILL ALWAYS PROTECT FAMILIES MORE THAN WORKING SHARERS.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2620
9:49 AM, 29th October 2026, About 10 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 28/10/2026 – 23:37
I see. But basically whilst an HMO has additional costs, e.g. licensing costs, the gist appears to be that since Labour’s Renters Rights Act it’s likely to be easier to get people out of an HMO than to get a working family with children out of a rental property. I.e. it might have higher operating costs but it’s probably going to be a lower risk investment because you’ve got more control over your property and a better chance of getting it back.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 764 - Articles: 1
10:55 AM, 29th October 2026, About 9 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 29/10/2026 – 09:49
yes, and for us more profitable that family housing even with the additional costs. we do sharers and rooms and must say I hate paying for others consumption.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2620
12:26 PM, 29th October 2026, About 8 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Joe Bloggs at 29/10/2026 – 10:55
I see…..I don’t know much about HMOs so thanks for sharing.
So the bottom line is that since Labour came to power less than 4% of houses built have been council houses, between them Rachel Reeves and John Healey have made it financially not viable to invest in houses for working families with children, and more risky to house working families with children than to house individuals in HMOs.
What a bunch of muppets.
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 40
12:46 PM, 29th October 2026, About 7 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 29/10/2026 – 12:26
Housing Act that created 3 person HMO was indeed a Labour government in 2004. However there has been plenty of opportunities for that to be undone. Also Tories had the opportunity to pass their own version of RRA but failed. So we can’t blame it all on one party. Ultimately it’s the public who elect the government so guess who is really to blame.