PRS Database could drive up costs without improving standards – Propertymark
12:01 AM, 11th August 2026, 2 weeks ago
11
Categories:
The Private Rented Sector (PRS) Database must be workable for landlords and letting agents, claims an industry body.
Propertymark is warning the government not to duplicate information already available through selective licensing, saying it risks increasing workloads without improving standards.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, all landlords will need to sign up for the database, which will include information about their properties that tenants can access.
If a landlord lets or advertises a property without it first being registered on the database, they can be issued with a civil penalty of up to £7,000 or a £40,000 fine if they provide fraudulent information to the database.
Enforcement should help landlords
In a post on its website, Propertymark says the database must support, rather than replace, effective local enforcement.
The industry body writes: “The database must not simply duplicate information already submitted through local licensing schemes or held on other government-approved systems, as this risks increasing workload and fees without necessarily improving standards.
“The interaction between the database, unique identifiers, property advertising, and the new Landlord Ombudsman must be clearly understood, and the legislation and supporting technology must be workable and based on evidence from those who will use it
“Landlords who deliberately operate outside the law may not register at all or could submit false documents. Councils will still need sufficient staff, resources and investigatory capacity to identify them.
“At the same time, enforcement should help landlords and agents who are actively trying to comply and correct genuine mistakes, while stronger penalties can be issued against deliberate and repeated breaches.”
Propertymark says in practice the PRS Database could mean more work for letting agents, such as new onboarding checks and recording management.
Additional costs
Propertymark is part of The Lettings Industry Council (TLIC), which has previously warned the PRS Database risks becoming a costly failure.
The industry body says letting agents will need to decide whether helping landlords register forms part of their existing service or incurs additional costs.
Propertymark said: “Many agents already hold relevant information in their existing systems. Requiring staff to enter the same data manually into a separate database would increase costs and the risk of errors.
“Agents will also need to decide whether helping landlords register will form part of their existing service or be offered separately. Terms of business may eventually need to explain the extent of the agent’s authority, the information the landlord must provide and responsibility for inaccurate or late information.”
The industry body added: “The regulations will establish requirements for making and updating entries, meaning registration is unlikely to be a one-off exercise. Changes of ownership, managing agent, contact details, property status and safety documentation may all need to be reflected on the database.
“Agents will need clarity on who is responsible for each update, how quickly it must be completed and what happens where the landlord does not respond.”
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Next Article
Achieved rents help sway tribunal decisionRelated Articles
Government signals enforcement may be funded via PRS Database fees
2 months ago | 9 comments
Government admits it lacks data on landlord enforcement by councils
2 weeks ago | 3 comments
Member Since August 2022 - Comments: 115
8:52 AM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
The PRS Database should be used for 2 purposes:
1. replace ALL selective licensing schemes in England. There is no point in duplicating information
2. In eviction cases, as proof that all documentation has been “correctly setved” to the tenant., as the tenant can readily download everything from the database.
This is what the NRLA should be pushing for.
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 932
10:31 AM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
Replace ‘could’ with ‘will’ in the title.
Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 255
10:52 AM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Markella Mikkelsen at 11/08/2026 – 08:52
Definitely the first point.
On the second point, I just get tenants to sign to say that they have received all the relevant documentation, and are happy to receive all communication electronically, as part of the tenancy agreement. I’ve never had any objections, and hopefully it would hold up it if ever came to it! I also give them permanent links to revisit and download information like the tenancy agreement, information guide for tenants, EICR and gas safety certificate if ever they need to see them for any reason.
Member Since June 2018 - Comments: 29
1:53 PM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
The government claims that selective licencing is imposed only on ‘problem areas’, but this is hard to believe when areas include regions of considerable affluence with very low levels of complaints or evictions. In reality the scheme is a crafty way of compiling a national landlord database by stealth, as a gradual approach avoids unified resistance. Making Tax Digital is another case where the real objective is disguised, in this case to ultimately put sole traders on a quarterly payment regime, like those registered for VAT.
Member Since January 2020 - Comments: 98
2:33 PM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
Landlords already register under the ICO database that they are landlords, councils also register landlords for council tax purposes, and HMRC have individuals registered as landlords. How many government databases does the government wants to to hold landlord information. Just because it’s easier to create a new database and new charges can apply, governments avoid doing up any joined up thinking on how society should be run.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2436
2:52 PM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Markella Mikkelsen at 11/08/2026 – 08:52
I think that any Labour Landlord Database will only be used as a stick to beat landlords with. I think that if it goes ahead it will be misused and it will drive up rents.
Whilst I can see some value in a tenant database, I can see no value in a Labour Landlord Database. I think instead that the project should be axed, the money should be saved, labour should fix the EPC system, and they should speed up the Land Registry such that the Land Registry registers leasehold changes more quickly without compromising anti-fraud procedures.
The proposed PRS database is a waste of money. Like HS2 any postulated benefits are far exceeded by risks.
Member Since November 2019 - Comments: 192
3:50 PM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
National Data Base One purpose fine Landlords.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2436
4:13 PM, 11th August 2026, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Northernpleb at 11/08/2026 – 15:50
To be more specific….the one purpose is to fine landlords who are mostly compliant but get caught out in all innocence through lack of knowledge whilst doing nothing significant to tackle genuine illegality.
They should kill this proposal and use the money saved to pay for their other unfunded promises.
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 243
9:53 AM, 15th August 2026, About 1 week ago
In Northern Ireland we have had a landlord database for years now. It is of zero benefit to anyone.
Landlords are put on a database, so that tenants know who their landlord is (like its some big secret) and the fee paid by landlords does just that……….nothing more.
It would make sense to use that database to inform landlords of the constant changes in legislation (fire alarm and electrical testing regulations have both changed in the last 2 years) BUT that would make way too much sense. So instead you have to hope to hear about changes on the local news, or from Billy down at the pub!
An email from the council to landlords is a step too far…..apparently!
What a joke.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2436
4:08 PM, 16th August 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by David100 at 15/08/2026 – 09:53
As I understand the proposal for the Labour Landlord Database it will only have property details and landlord details on it, not tenant details. I don’t know what steps are proposed to minimise the risk of fraud and to protect landlord personal information.
However, we have just seen the murder of an MP in the United Kingdom. If anybody decides that they want to target landlords for any reason then if they can identify a property from the Labour Landlord Database they can then go to the Land Registry and obtain the landlord’s details in order to target the landlord. Although this might seem like a theoretical consideration one of my properties has development potential and I receive a constant stream of letters from people who want to develop the property.
I can see no benefit in the Labour Landlord Database: I can only see risk.