Landlords face £65 annual PRS Database fee as HMRC takes on rent increase disputes
3 weeks ago | 101 comments
The landlord register is real, it has a date, and the £65 fee is the least important thing about it
by Tauhid Islam
8:59 AM, 21st September 2026, 2 weeks ago
88
Categories:
On 9 September 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed that the PRS Database, now rebranded as the “Register your rental property” service, will begin rolling out on 15 December 2026, starting in the West Midlands.
Every landlord letting on an assured or regulated tenancy in England will need to register themselves and each property, at £65 per property per year, renewable annually. The detailed deadlines sit in the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026, laid before Parliament in September, and the accompanying government guidance.
Most of the coverage so far has focused on the fee. Having spent the days since the announcement going through the press release, the campaign guidance, and the underlying provisions of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, I think three other features of this scheme deserve far more attention than they are currently getting.
First, the dates are staggered by region, and your deadline follows the property, not you
The rollout follows the nine regions of England on a rolling monthly basis. When your region is called forward, you have a three month window to register. After that window closes, councils in that region can begin enforcement activity. The confirmed deadlines, taken directly from the government’s published guidance, are:
Region |
Requirement commences |
Deadline to register |
| West Midlands | 15 December 2026 | 14 March 2027 |
| East of England | 15 January 2027 | 14 April 2027 |
| East Midlands | 15 February 2027 | 14 May 2027 |
| South East | 15 March 2027 | 14 June 2027 |
| Yorkshire and Humber | 15 April 2027 | 14 July 2027 |
| North West | 15 May 2027 | 14 August 2027 |
| North East | 15 June 2027 | 14 September 2027 |
| London | 15 July 2027 | 14 October 2027 |
| South West | 15 August 2027 | 14 November 2027 |
Note the pain point for portfolio landlords. Deadlines follow the property, not the owner. A London-based landlord with a flat in Birmingham is in the first wave, not the eighth.
If you hold properties across regions, you will face several different deadlines, though the government has confirmed that voluntary early registration is open to everyone from 15 December 2026, so a portfolio can be registered in one sitting if you prefer. The fee will also be pro-rated during rollout so that landlords called forward first do not pay more than those registering later.
Two further points on scope. Registration currently applies only to properties under let, or which become let during the rollout. Unoccupied properties come later, under future legislation, at which point registration will be required before a property can even be marketed, and landlords and agents will need to include their unique identifiers on adverts.
And there is one narrow exemption: landlords of supported exempt accommodation, as defined in section 12 of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, are outside the scheme.
Second, this is not a name and address register. You are uploading your compliance file, and your rent
The information requirements are extensive, and they were published alongside the announcement. For each property, landlords will need to provide, among other things: the address, ownership and dwelling type, the number of bedrooms, the number of occupants and households, whether the property requires an HMO licence, an additional licence or a selective licence together with the licence numbers, whether it is let furnished, and, notably, the rent charged and payment frequency, including whether utilities are included.
Then comes the compliance evidence. Where the property has a gas supply, a copy of the gas safety record and its issue date. A copy of the Electrical Installation Condition Report, or the appropriate Electrical Installation Certificate, together with its expiry date. The most recent Energy Performance Certificate, and where the property sits below the minimum energy efficiency standard, details of any registered MEES exemption.
Registration runs through a GOV.UK One Login, with offline routes available for landlords who need them. Letting agents will be able to upload certain information on a landlord’s behalf, but the guidance is explicit that the landlord must start the registration personally and remains legally responsible for everything provided.
Two observations, and I will label them as opinion. The rent disclosure requirement has had almost no scrutiny, and I suspect many landlords do not yet realise they will be reporting their rents to a government database annually.
The government says the information made available to tenants will balance landlords’ privacy concerns against the need for tenants to make informed rental choices, and that the list of publicly visible information will be published at a later stage, so the extent of what tenants will eventually see remains genuinely open.
Secondly, the certificate upload requirement quietly converts the database into a rolling compliance audit. A landlord whose EICR lapsed eight months ago is no longer invisible. That gap will be sitting in a system councils are being funded to police.
Third, the penalties are not really the sanction. The possession bar is
The headline figures are that local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000 for an initial breach, rising to up to £40,000 for serious, continuing or repeat breaches, as an alternative to criminal prosecution. Knowingly providing false or misleading information to the database can amount to a criminal offence, and continuing breaches can also expose a landlord to a rent repayment order.
All of those figures are maxima rather than fixed fines, and where a penalty actually lands will depend on the enforcing authority, its published policy, and the conduct in question.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, once the registration requirement applies in a region, an unregistered landlord is generally unable to obtain a possession order, with the exception of the anti-social behaviour grounds.
Since 1 May 2026, every possession claim already runs through Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Stack the two together and the position is: an unregistered landlord with a non-paying tenant may find the courtroom door closed until the registration is put right, with the arrears clock running throughout.
That is a far sharper incentive than any fine, and it is the provision I would expect tenant advisers to check first in every future possession claim.
What I would be doing between now and my regional deadline
None of this requires panic, but it rewards preparation. The landlords who will find registration painless are the ones who can lay hands on every certificate in minutes.
Practically, that means checking now that the gas safety record, EICR and EPC for every property are current, in date, and stored somewhere retrievable, confirming your licensing position where HMO or selective licensing applies, and noting your regional deadline in the diary with a margin.
One final point of fairness to the scheme. For compliant landlords, there is a genuine upside here. Rogue operators undercutting the market on price because they spend nothing on compliance will find that harder once councils can see who is registered and who is not, and the government has said fee income will part fund enforcement staffing.
Whether those resources actually materialise across hundreds of local authorities is another question, but the design at least points in the right direction.
I would be interested to hear how everyone sees this. Are you planning to register everything at once in December, or wait for your regional window? And does the rent disclosure requirement concern anyone else, or am I reading too much into it?
A partnership with Property118
Property118 and LLCR (Landlord Compliance Register) have agreed a partnership for this community. LLCR gives self-managing landlords in England one place to hold every certificate, deadline and document for each property, so that registration, rent increases and possession claims are met with a prepared file rather than a scramble.
Property118 readers receive a 10 per cent lifetime reduction on the Starter and Pro plans, on either monthly or annual billing, using the code PROPERTY118 by clicking here.
https://www.llcr-app.uk/partners/property118?via=neil
Tauhid Islam is a property law paralegal qualifying as a solicitor. He works on tenancy, possession, and compliance matters daily, and founded LLCR, Landlord Compliance Register to give self-managing landlords in England a single place to track every deadline, certificate, and document the law requires of them.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It describes the position in England. Always seek independent legal advice for your specific situation.
88 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.
Related Articles
Industry reaction to the government’s mandatory landlord database announcement
3 weeks ago | 28 comments
PRS Database must be more than a licensing fee collector – Propertymark
1 month ago | 5 comments
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 8
3:32 AM, 27th September 2026, About 5 days ago
Not only will these proposals not help renters, but they will put renters at risk in various ways.
Many females (and some males) have suffered from stalkers. If a female tenant has her property registered, then this is a means by which a stalker can gain information about her, and some of this information can be used to her detriment. Just 1 simple example is that a spiteful stalker could contact her landlord with any kind of misinformation just to make her life more difficult.
Stalkers aside, not everyone even wants it to be known how much rent they pay, how many bedrooms they have, etc. or even if they are renting and not in a family home or suchlike. This information should all be kept totally private. And the privacy and safety aspects that having data online/shared present is the whole reason for the data protection laws.
The idea that the government are doing any of this to help renters is for the fairies.
It just looks like a power and money grab, and to the detriment of both renters and landlords.
I have read some comments on here by landlords saying they will sell up. I think the government might want landlords to sell up. If all landlords sold up, then the only opportunity for renters to rent would be to go to the government, and this grants immense power to the government. For example, they could refuse to rent to certain groups of people or at least not prioritise them (based on political views, race, religion, anything), they could insist on various conditions to rent, etc. While there is a private renting market with private landlords, this acts as a protection for those who need to rent.
A government that wanted more power and more money and to be able to use housing as means of control would not want private landlords nor a private housing market available for renters.
The question is: does anyone think that our government might be motivated by the desire for control, power and money? If such a government existed, then they would want to make life harder for private landlords and would relish the idea of private landlords selling up.
In my opinion, these proposals put renters and landlords at risk.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 26
7:26 AM, 27th September 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by james at 27/09/2026 – 03:32
It’s not only tenants who may have had stalkers at their address. Landlords too. I am not at all comfortable with my address being public.
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 338
7:55 AM, 27th September 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by GH at 27/09/2026 – 07:26
Did you see my comment yesterday where I quoted The Independent newspaper? (It was an add on to my reply to you regarding the registration process).
According to gov.uk individual landlords must start the process with a personal log in themselves and be verified as who they say they are which includes having to submit their address which would need to match, presumably, electoral register, tax records etc.
It would appear, according to The Independent, that this address is only primarily for ID verification purposes. The actual register needs a correspondence address and for those who use a letting agent then this would obviously be the agent.
I think it boils down to giving a tenant an address, as supplied by the LL, where the tenant could send a registered letter about, say, an issue with the property and it would be accepted that the landlord was in receipt of this and had knowledge. Should a landlord not respond or for any reason the letter not reach them, the council or any other official body would have the LLs actual address should further action be needed.
That’s my take on it anyway, anlthough academic for me as I’ll be out before implementation with the last of my 14 sold.
Member Since October 2017 - Comments: 69
8:30 AM, 27th September 2026, About 5 days ago
this new register is so similr to a councils licensing requirements.
why re we required to provide the same paperwork as already supplied to the council and even the epc which is already publicly available
SURELY we dont need TWO registrars repeting the same thing I am paying around £190/annun as in london to create papertrails for what
the councils regristration should go afterall the cost and work f enforcement is not done by licensing but by planning and enviromental health – their fee is just for admin
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 627
1:42 PM, 27th September 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by blair at 27/09/2026 – 08:30
Why indeed do you have the register your information in duplicate and pay for the privilege, but we all have our theories. Write to your MP and ask for an explanation and see the BS reply. Also mention this extra cost will be passed on to tenants.
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 8
1:13 AM, 28th September 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by PH at 21/09/2026 – 19:32
Yes. Many tenants do not even want people to know that they are renting rather than in a family home or suchlike. And this will also put tenants at risk in many ways. For example, people who have enemies or stalkers or suchlike could use the information to make problems for their victims. This includes victims who are renters. A vindictive person could file false reports to the landlord using this data base and then cause issues for the tenant. A spiteful stalker could even threaten the landlord to cause problems for the tenant. And all the data about the amount of rent, number of bedrooms, etc. is all data that a certain tenant might want to keep private for many personal reasons.
This proposal risks tenants and landlords. The idea that the government is doing any of this to help tenants is ridiculous.
And I have seen some landlords on here saying they will sell up. I would recommend that you do not do so.
Just imagine if there were no private landlords left and no private rental market. This would hand immense power to the government: the only way for people who could not buy to rent a roof over their head would be by going to the government for a home. A government then would have the power to not let to certain groups (based on race, religion, political views or any other reason). At the least, the government could choose whom they prioritise and whom they leave on waiting lists for years. At least while there is a private rental market, tenants have that option and the government does not have the immense power that they would were there no private rental market.
Forcing landlords to want to sell up just gets closer to the government having more power, control and money. And does anyone think that the government might not want more control, power or money?
I would recommend landlords not to sell up, but to fight these proposals through the courts. I think that the issues of privacy, safety and security (data protection laws) for both tenants and also for landlords might be the best option to stop this.
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 8
1:13 AM, 28th September 2026, About 4 days ago
Yes. Many tenants do not even want people to know that they are renting rather than in a family home or suchlike. And this will also put tenants at risk in many ways. For example, people who have enemies or stalkers or suchlike could use the information to make problems for their victims. This includes victims who are renters. A vindictive person could file false reports to the landlord using this data base and then cause issues for the tenant. A spiteful stalker could even threaten the landlord to cause problems for the tenant. And all the data about the amount of rent, number of bedrooms, etc. is all data that a certain tenant might want to keep private for many personal reasons.
This proposal risks tenants and landlords. The idea that the government is doing any of this to help tenants is ridiculous.
And I have seen some landlords on here saying they will sell up. I would recommend that you do not do so.
Just imagine if there were no private landlords left and no private rental market. This would hand immense power to the government: the only way for people who could not buy to rent a roof over their head would be by going to the government for a home. A government then would have the power to not let to certain groups (based on race, religion, political views or any other reason). At the least, the government could choose whom they prioritise and whom they leave on waiting lists for years. At least while there is a private rental market, tenants have that option and the government does not have the immense power that they would were there no private rental market.
Forcing landlords to want to sell up just gets closer to the government having more power, control and money. And does anyone think that the government might not want more control, power or money?
I would recommend landlords not to sell up, but to fight these proposals through the courts. I think that the issues of privacy, safety and security (data protection laws) for both tenants and also for landlords might be the best option to stop this.
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 10
4:37 AM, 28th September 2026, About 4 days ago
I kinda think it is all a storm in a tea cup. We used to have phone books, name, address and phone number. Freely available. Certainly more paperwork, and repeated paperwork due to alot of areas also have selective licenses. It will also add to the rent. But it is not going to make me sell up. I guess i am naive.
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 338
7:22 AM, 28th September 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by StvD at 28/09/2026 – 04:37
There are so many factors involved in a decision to sell up. Mine to start selling was made in 2015 following Osborne’s S24.
I will be out before the register with my last one, but not directly because of it. I fully agree that from a tenants perspective, amount of rent, number of tenants and just the simple fact that they are renters not owners being put in the public domain is a step too far. However, there are plenty so called tenants’ rights groups and rather than being overly left wing political mouthpieces (Shelter – that’s you with your utterly shameful manipulation of a homeless veteran’s story to support your open borders stance) should be speaking up for tenants who may well be impacted by this.
From a LL perspective, I’m pretty sure that the register will have an option for a correspondence address on the public facing side of it – such as a letting agent. For anything bought in the last 35 years or so, anyone can pay (£2.50 I think unless it’s gone up) for information on the property owner as listed on the Land Registry. The price paid for the property is already public, the search reveals the owners details and if there is a mortgage, the name of the lender under the charges section (not the amount though).
When we all had landlines and phone books many chose to go Ex Directory as I did at some point. I also tick the box for excluding my name and address from the publicly available version of Electoral register. My ASTs listed my name c/o the letting agency address under the LL details, but if anyone wanted to find me my home address was listed on the Land Registry as owner of each property.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 26
7:41 AM, 28th September 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 27/09/2026 – 07:55
Yes, thanks, I have now seen your reply.
I feel a LL register is good if it reduces the ‘rogue’ operators who bring a bad name to other LL. But then, the Govt gives LL a bad name anyway, so …
But it does seem to be repeating other admin done for Councils – nothing I can do about that.
It’s the security that I am most concerned about: mine, and indeed the tenant’s.