NRLA warns of landlord database ‘rip off’ cost

This landlord database is an expensive mess. Labour has already claimed to have scrapped its ID scheme to focus on the cost of living:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y08z25q8eo

The truth is that scheme wasn’t funded anyway and so neither was their pledge. They should scrap their landlord database to save money. It’s also not clear how the security of landlord’s personal data will be protected in this database. MPs are already worried about their own personal security…being attacked at home or in their offices….what about the personal security of landlords? Most landlords are small landlords. What about the increased risk of fraud?

So another cost for all renters (for that is where it ends up) of £1.25 per property per week plus costs of the work itself

I’ve done the calculation and that direct costs — what the scheme charges. It doesn’t cover the cost of the office time, which could easily be the same again. We won’t know until we start doing it. An hour per property doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Add the cost to the rent and claim as an allowable expense against tax.
More worrying, as I keep saying, is the public publication of a landlord’s residential address, their date of birth, their email address and their telephone number.
Open cheque book for scammers; breach of Art 8 Human Rights Act AND ECHR for the landlord and IMPORTANTLY their family living at the residential address and the very real possibility for harm, both physical and mental, to the landlord and their family.

LIEbour must despise tenants will all those costs that keep putting on Landlords
After all, the cost always gets passed to the tenants as we do run a business
In my opinion
Allegedly

Tenants, Govt has just gave you £33 pm rent increase with rules they said were to protect you

Dear Tenants,
Govt has just bought in yet another charge £65 per year EACH house for property database fee. So you got to have rent increase for that £6pm. Plus 20+ questions, uploading loads of forms, an hour each house, & then updating the database throughout the year whenever a change, boiler certificate etc. And if u forget to upload a new (even if you’ve done it and got it) EPC, Landlady gets fined £7000. Tenants in London love to hear this. You sensible people in Nottingham know it makes your Landlord want to sell.

All this information needed for the property database, the Council already have for your Selective Licensing, who already charge £1000 every 5 years, so £200 per year, so you got £20 pm rent increase for that.

Previously we could just agree between ourselves if rents were £1000 & you were paying £750, you could agree verbally to £775 or £800. Well Govt has put a stop to that costing you again. Govt has said all rent increases must be done by Section 13. Letting agents cost £75 to do this, so that’s another £7pm.

So before we even get a little rent increase to pay for all inflationary increased costs, you’ve got £33pm which is going straight on the Govt charges.
This is without the extra admin we’ve got 4am office starts 9pm finishes. So no longer small rent increases I’m afraid, we got minimum £83pm before we start.

I could go on & on if some Media outlet would finally tell the truth & put it all out there, cause tenants that had no problem (80%) are really hit hard by all these Govt & Council changes.

Mick Roberts sounds a little bit dramatic but actually when you think about it, he is spot-on. And well written.

Yes of course it’s a total rip off.

But Why hasn’t the NRLA done anything to stop it before ? Why haven’t they managed to be heard? Their comments are far too mild. come far too late and don’t reach mainstream media.

Frankly they are doing a pitiful job at fighting for us and representing our interests.

Meanwhile tenants’ campaign groups shout relentlessly and their ludicrous demands get amplified in the press on a daily basis.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 05/10/2026 – 10:25
Absolutely right: Publishing a landlord’s personal data leaves the landlord at risk of physical attack and also subjects the landlord to an increased risk of fraud; there is already a greater risk of fraud with a rental property than there is with an owner-occupied property. When fraud happens the impact is extremely high, as the Land Registry already knows.

This database is supposed to be run by HMRC and HMRC cannot afford to put landlord sensitive personal and sensitive financial information in the public domain, any more than it can afford to make private individual’s tax returns public because legally HMRC is a data-processor and controller:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-protection-act-dpa-information-hm-revenue-and-customs-hold-about-you/data-protection-act-dpa-information-hm-revenue-and-customs-hold-about-you

HMRC does occasionally lose personal data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_child_benefit_data_breach

When HMRC loses data HMRC is liable for the consequences of that loss. Landlords already have to declare their rental income and costs. There is no significant public benefit to this landlord database, only cost (including the costs pointed out by Mick Roberts) but also risk, including both risk to individual landlords and also risk to the taxpayer who is ultimately liable for breaches.

Much as I despise this anti-landlord, corrupt, incompetent Labour Government, I fear they may have a right to request and publish the information we are obliged to now provide.

Perhaps someone can clarify and confirm the position.

The Qualified Nature of Article 8
Article 8 is a qualified right, meaning it is not absolute and the state can interfere with it under specific, justified circumstances. Under Article 8(2), any interference by a public authority must satisfy a strict test:

In accordance with the law: The action must have a legal basis in domestic law.

Legitimate aim: It must pursue one or more specified public interests, such as national security, public safety, economic well-being, prevention of crime or disorder, protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights of others.

Necessary in a democratic society (Proportionality): The measure must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between the individual’s rights and the wider public interest

Whatever, it is yet another attack on landlords, given the funding now being offered to tenants to challenge possession orders or eviction notices; funding which, through our taxes, landlords are paying for.