2 months ago | 35 comments
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
61 comments on this article
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?
2 months ago | 35 comments
1 month ago | 22 comments
1 month ago | 15 comments
Member Since October 2026 - Comments: 14
6:01 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 17/10/2026 – 06:40
That’s the part that gets missed. Every landlord who sells up takes homes out of the rental pool, and with a 14-year council wait there’s nowhere else for those tenants to go. Out of interest did you consider selling your business as one lot?
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 34
8:04 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Veers at 19/10/2026 – 06:01
The properties may be removed from the rental pool, but they still exist. Either they are bought by an owner/occupier who will therefore no longer need a rental, or they’re bought by another landlord.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3422 - Articles: 83
10:59 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Veers at 19/10/2026 – 06:01
I had several that wanted to buy as job lot with no thought to the remaining tenants & their not so high rents & long term house etc. So I sold loads individually with several colleagues buying a few at a time. Still now got a few that want to buy the rest as a job lot but I’m gonna’ need convincing as Why would they buy 240k houses bringing in 12k before tax, when safe tracker investment can bring in 14k pa no tax. So I’m doing em list by end Nov hopefully & see what their plans are. Even then, loads of my remaining tenants won’t have it, previously crying with Joy when I said I’m not selling there. Lots been there 25 years. I’m ruddy stuck.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3422 - Articles: 83
11:00 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by GH at 19/10/2026 – 08:04
Definitely took away from the lower earners though & Benefit tenants who were previously OK paying that lower rent in their long term home.
Member Since October 2026 - Comments: 14
5:40 AM, 20th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by GH at 19/10/2026 – 08:04
Fair point, GH, the house doesn’t vanish. But when an owner-occupier buys it, the tenant who was living there still needs somewhere to rent, and in Nottingham that’s a 14-year council wait.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 34
7:54 AM, 20th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Veers at 20/10/2026 – 05:40
Yes it’s true Jonathan, the Council wait is long. But the owner/occupier who buys the rental property may have been a renter, thus leaving a (private) rental property vacant when they move in. Maybe research is needed to show the real impact of private landlords exiting the market. A tenant who vacates due to a landlord selling goes somewhere, but not necessarily to a LA property. One issue, IMO, is that private landlords are no longer entering the market and buying the properties which need extensive work. If the owner isn’t confident to do the work, or doesn’t have the money, those properties can sit empty for a long time. Pushing landlords out of the market really wasn’t a smart move by Govt.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3792 - Articles: 5
5:19 PM, 20th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 19/10/2026 – 10:59
seriously Mick you got to detach yourself a bit here. I get it, but if you want to sell and you got a buyer and a price is agreed then just do it. I’m all for doing the best thing for the T, but at the same time by default of renting, it means nothing is forever. They need to understand this as much as you do. Its life.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3792 - Articles: 5
5:22 PM, 20th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Veers at 20/10/2026 – 05:40
the waiting list is not the LL’s problem, its only an issue for those looking to rent.
Member Since June 2017 - Comments: 165
5:28 PM, 20th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 20/10/2026 – 17:22
And if landlords don’t give the state the problem, then it’s confirming that landlords are absorbing their policy changes. We didn’t change anything. They did.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3422 - Articles: 83
6:56 PM, 20th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 20/10/2026 – 17:19
I agree. And I’m a certain age next year. And I don’t want to get to another 5 or 10 years and really regret not doing something about selling the rest. As since Eb Miliband re-introduced EPC C again, then RRA £7000 fine not giving tenant letter, and crikey wowzers the latest database £7k fine for not uploading a perfectly legal property and certificate, I am the next few months gonna be talking to tenants who I did say I’d never sell on them.
This ain’t my fault, Govt and Councils giving me dozens more hours every month and threats of fines on houses I don’t want. It’s torture as most of us know.