Is the government’s PRS Database registration putting landlords at risk?
2 weeks ago | 35 comments
Government fails to explain how landlord privacy will be protected under PRS Database
9:30 AM, 8th October 2026, 3 days ago
28
Categories:
The government has reassured landlords it will safeguard their privacy in the PRS Database, but has provided no details on how.
Property118 contacted the government after concerns were raised by landlords about privacy and how their data will be handled under 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.
Safeguard the privacy of landlords
The government told Property118 that data will be handled in line with data protection legislation, with further details to be announced in due course.
A Ministry of Housing spokesperson told us: “The new database will help tenants make vital and informed decisions when entering into a tenancy agreement.
“However, we will ensure we safeguard the privacy of landlords, and any data shared will be in line with data protection legislation.”
The government adds that under future legislation, landlords will also be required to register any unoccupied properties before marketing them for let. Letting agents and landlords will need to include registration numbers on adverts.
Transparency must be balanced with landlords’ privacy
The PRS Database will launch regionally, with the first rollout set to begin in the West Midlands in December.
Industry bodies have urged the government to clarify what information will be publicly available on the PRS Database ahead of its launch.
Propertymark says a redacted version of a landlord’s address should be made available to help protect landlords’ privacy.
Timothy Douglas, the head of policy and campaigns at Propertymark, told Property118: “We support the principle of a national PRS Database, but transparency must be balanced with landlords’ privacy and personal safety.
“When it comes to databases, Propertymark has previously supported making a redacted version of a landlord’s address available, rather than publishing a full personal address. That distinction remains important as information may need to be held for regulatory and enforcement purposes without being made publicly searchable.
“The UK government should therefore clarify exactly what information will be publicly accessible and what safeguards will protect landlords from unnecessary privacy and security risks. Effective enforcement and transparency should not come at the expense of personal safety.”
Landlords need urgent clarity
The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) also echoed Propertymark’s stance and urged the government to give more clarity on the information accessible on the database.
A spokesperson for the NRLA said: “At the moment it’s unclear exactly what the architecture underpinning the PRS database is set to look like and how the new system will work in practice.
“Given that the roll-out of the PRS database is set to start from December, landlords urgently need clarity on these points.
“When it comes to data privacy, we believe that all safeguarding processes must be followed rigorously considering the vast quantities of data the new system is likely to possess.”
Cost the PRS £327 million a year
The NRLA has also warned that England’s planned landlord database could cost the private rented sector at least £327 million a year, with tenants ultimately footing the bill.
Landlords will have to pay a £65 annual fee per property to register on the PRS Database.
The NRLA spokesperson added: “More broadly, the ‘year one’ cost implications per property for landlords across the sector are likely to be considerable. The position of those landlords already complying with local licensing schemes under the new regime isn’t clear either.
“Landlords need to have sufficient time to make the transition to the new system, so the government must take all the steps it can to allay landlords’ concerns.”
The database fee will be charged alongside licensing fees in areas where councils operate their own schemes – which can reach as much as £2,300 per property, as charged by Arun District Council.
Raise rents to cover cost
Landlords are already factoring in the additional costs, with some warning they may need to raise rents to cover them. One landlord has said he will need to charge an extra £6 a month to cover the new database fee.
Mick Roberts, one of Nottingham’s largest landlords providing homes to benefit tenants, wrote in an article for Property118 that councils already hold much of the information required for the database through selective licensing schemes.
He wrote: “The government has just brought in yet another charge, a £65-a-year fee for each property to be registered on the PRS Database. That means you’ll need a rent increase of around £6 per month just to cover it.
“All the information needed for the property database, the council already has for selective licensing. The council already charges around £1,000 every five years for this, which works out at £200 per year, or another £20 per month in rent.”
The government has also warned that landlords who let or advertise a property without first registering it on the database could face a civil penalty of up to £7,000. Those who provide fraudulent information to the database could face a fine of up to £40,000.
More questions than answers
With the first rollout of the PRS Database only weeks away, landlords are being asked to pay for a system while concerns remain over privacy, costs and how the database will work in practice.
For now, many questions remain unanswered, and whether the government can deliver greater transparency for tenants while adequately protecting landlords’ privacy remains to be seen.
28 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
Rents tipped to rise as tenant demand grows - RICSNext Article
Suggestions for a new block building managing agent?Related Articles
The government thinks a landlord’s house is more dangerous than a car with no MOT
5 days ago | 21 comments
Labour wants the keys to YOUR landlord properties
1 week ago | 15 comments
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 92
11:10 AM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
It is a database, so presume data is inserted in ‘fields’. Would hope that only certain/basic fields can be seen on public register. Then landlords will be able to log in and be able to see more fields than public (ie tenants) can see. And maybe just authorities (councils, hmrc, rent tribunals etc) would have full access to fields showing more sensitive data?
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 653
11:32 AM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by David Payne at 08/10/2026 – 10:42
You make a very valid point.
It is disturbing to think that we will have our personal contact details, home addresses, date of birth and a myriad of information about the properties that we own on a data base under the control of the council.
When Joe public have access I am sure the scammers will be delighted.
Member Since March 2015 - Comments: 1979 - Articles: 1
12:05 PM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
They. Just. Say. Words.
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 92
12:56 PM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Suggest if you haven’t already, sign up to Land Registry Property Alert to prevent fraud. You will get email if any activity on your property.
Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 275
1:34 PM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
I’m 58 with long-term health issues. My tenants know that I don’t actually need to do any of this. Their only worry is what they will do if or when I call it a day and sell up. Everything the government does is designed to hasten that day. So much for giving tenants more security!
One day there will be a retrospective looking at what went wrong and it will say that every measure designed to “help” tenants by tightening the screw on landlords just made their lives less secure on average, and mostly helped only a select few mostly undesirable tenants.
They talk about what goes on abroad with rose-tinned spectacles. When you know people from places like Germany who tell you that you have to wait something like 4 years just to get a private tenancy, you know their system is even worse. A highly regulated underserved market with no capacity, no competition.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3347 - Articles: 83
1:49 PM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 08/10/2026 – 13:34
U say it perfectly as it is
Member Since January 2024 - Comments: 426
4:24 PM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Redacted addresses are pointless. It isn’t rocket science to find someone’s address from a surname and postcode or street name.
Member Since September 2026 - Comments: 3
6:36 PM, 8th October 2026, About 3 days ago
i have FOI’s in for all their assessments relating to privacy for us LL’s which is due in in a few weeks. I’m guessing much may be redacted or i get ‘no impact assessment has been done’.
I was also in an NRLA webinar the other day re the Database and they actually had someone from Government on who is dealing with it….they confirmed as you can guess that the 65 per year fee is going to increase with inflation every year…..
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 12
1:14 AM, 9th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 08/10/2026 – 10:20
It might actually be illegal for landlords to give this tenants’ data to be published online. As data controllers, landlords are not allowed to share the tenants’ data. For landlords to share this private data about the tenants such as how much rent they pay, how many bedrooms they have, etc. might be illegal. It is definitely a breach of the privacy rights of tenants anyway. We all have a right to privacy under the human rights legislation, and these proposals breach that right.
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 12
1:35 AM, 9th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 08/10/2026 – 16:24
Indeed. The whole idea of ‘redacted addresses’ and ‘partial addresses’ is complete nonsense. This data grab puts landlords at risk and also puts tenants at risk. What exactly are the benefits meant to be of these proposals? Whom is this meant to benefit? It does not benefit landlords nor tenants, only breaches their safety and privacy.
They want landlords’ full identification data, including date of birth. What grounds are there for this data being requested? This breaches the data minimisation requirements of data protection GDPR legislation. Landlords will be made targets for criminals, ID theft, fraud, etc. Your full ID will be available to the whole world and they will publish it all online for the whole world. Plus you will be a target as a landlord, criminals will think you have money.
And have they not considered vulnerable people who are landlords such as women who have fled domestic violence and suchlike? Those women cannot publish their name and address online. So how will they remain as being landlords? What about stalkers and suchlike too? They can now link their victims who are landlords with rental properties and even target the tenants and rental properties to harass their victim landlords by harassing the tenants there.
And publishing on the internet which addresses are rentals puts those rentals and the tenants there at risk. Criminals can look up online and identify which properties are rentals and then they can target those rentals. This can cause so many problems. It could be as simple as criminals turning up at the door of a rental and pretending the landlord sent them to check something or suchlike. Once they gain access, they can steal, attack, etc. This will particularly impact vulnerable tenants such as the elderly and those with learning difficulties and women etc. There have been many cases of these type of ‘gaining access’ crimes already, and publishing which addressees are rentals online will cause a spate of this and put people and properties at risk.
The problems this idea will cause are numerous.
What safeguarding assessments have been made in respect of these proposals?
And this idea that they are demanding all this personal private data now and then will ‘tell us later’ how much they decide to publish online is illegal according to data protection legislation: you have to state the purposes of data collection before collecting it. You cannot take data and then decide how much you publish on the internet later.
Plus any data base is a risk in that any data base can be hacked, never mind crooks working for the government.
These proposals are just ridiculous in so many ways. We need to see the assessments from the government as to what actual benefits they are hoping to achieve with this, how well this would achieve those – and this needs to balanced on the other side with the problems these proposal will cause. Such proposals should have been assessed as a cost benefit assessment. Also, the safeguarding issues and privacy issues, data protection issues, etc. should all have been thoroughly assessed. Where is a copy of this analysis from the government?