Who will protect landlords when the threats begin?

Just when you think you’ve heard it all as a landlord, there comes a flurry of stories that are both appalling and sobering.

I’m talking about the Property118 community this week discussing the threats they have received from aggrieved tenants.

Threats to burn down a landlord’s home tend to stay with you.

When the person making the threat knows where you live, providing someone with a home can suddenly feel like putting your own family at risk.

Beneath a Property118 reader’s question, landlords have described death threats, intimidation and unwanted visits to their homes.

One says threats to kill them and burn down both their properties were recorded by police.

Another describes threatening telephone calls and someone pursuing a grievance to their former family home.

The original correspondent alleges that a tenant sabotaged their car’s brakes.

These are readers’ accounts, rather than independently established findings, but they deserve something better than being dismissed as landlords having another moan.

They explain why the forthcoming PRS Database has prompted questions that ministers should answer now.

Tell us who can see what

The government’s published guidance requires individual landlords to provide their name, date of birth, residential address, telephone number and email address.

It also says: “We’ll publish a list of information that the public will be able to access at a later stage.”

‘Later’. That’s a reassuring word for someone who has already had an angry tenant on their doorstep.

Let’s be clear: this does not establish that landlords’ home addresses or dates of birth will be published.

Collecting information and displaying it publicly are different things.

But why leave landlords guessing?

What if, and it is a big if, names, home addresses, dates of birth and contact numbers become publicly accessible?

What are landlords supposed to do then?

Change their telephone number? Move house? Their date of birth is rather harder to replace.

Or will access be restricted to tenants who can demonstrate that they hold a tenancy agreement?

If so, which details will they see, and why?

A verified tenancy would establish a relationship with the landlord.

It would not establish that the person seeking access poses no threat.

The experiences described by readers should make that distinction painfully obvious.

Privacy needs more than promises

How will these arrangements comply with UK GDPR?

The question deserves a proper explanation.

That’s because data protection requires lawful, fair and transparent processing, information limited to what is necessary, and appropriate security.

A government database must meet those requirements too.

There may be a legitimate reason to collect information for identification or enforcement.

That does not automatically justify showing the same information to tenants or strangers.

Ministers should explain why each personal detail is needed, who can access it and what safeguards exist for landlords with documented histories of threats.

Even information withheld from public view needs protection against unauthorised access.

Landlords are entitled to ask about that without being accused of opposing accountability.

Tenants need reliable ways to contact landlords, serve notices and enforce their rights.

Those arrangements should also protect the safety of the person receiving them.

Tenants pay for another worry

The consequences extend beyond the registration form.

Some readers say they will sell when their current tenants leave.

Others describe already putting properties on the market after frightening experiences.

We cannot measure a national trend from a comment thread.

We can, however, recognise the decision being described: the income no longer compensates for the worry.

For landlords already weighing rising costs, greater obligations and the possibility of a difficult tenancy, uncertainty about personal security adds another reason to stop.

The next applicant then has one fewer home to consider.

Those who remain may face landlords increasingly unwilling to take a chance.

Where does this end?

Before demanding personal information, the government should explain precisely how it will protect it.

Would the Housing Minister be comfortable having their home address, date of birth and telephone number accessible through the same system? If the answer is no, ministers should understand why landlords are asking these questions.

Having something to protect is not the same as having something to hide.

Landlords should not have to wait until something goes wrong to discover that the safeguards they expected were never there.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader