Who will protect landlords when the threats begin?

TOO LATE
Just to be clear, Landlords of HMOs and many buildings converted to flats have been required to do this for 2 decades

“The manager must ensure that his name, address and any telephone contact number are clearly displayed in a prominent position in the common parts of the HMO so that they may be seen by all occupiers.”

So if LL operates from home – LL home address has to be on display for all to see.

Fines for failing to do this start at £3,000 and we have had one case of a council demanding £28,000 for a missing notice brought to us at Landlord Licensing & Defence

All under the Housing Act 2004 via The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation England Regulations 2006 and
The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007

I think the most worrying point has been missed with regard to publicising a landlord’s residential address.

It is that the general public will have access to a landlord, and their family’s, residential ie home address, which includes past/prospective and many current tenants but importantly criminals be they fraudsters/scammers and/or those that intend physical and/or mental harm including terrorists/arsonists/anti-landlord action groups and ex husbands/wives/partners etc etc.

Who will safeguard landlords and their families? Actually imho no-one will.

Who will be accountable should something happen to a landlord or their family? Actually imho no-one.

When will insurers realise the increased risks to landlords own residential property and increase premiums or decline to cover? Don’t think it will be long coming.

Landlords need to make this government stop this abuse, and breach, of Art 8 HRA, Art 8 ECHR and other pieces of legislation.

The only ways are taking to the streets, refusing to complete the registration en mass, bombarding MPs, letters to the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister notifying them that should any incident occur then you hold them legally liable.
Get the media involved.

Landlords had the power in 2018 and in 2024 to stop all this but sadly very little power now and no organisation with any power or clout prepared to stand up and fight the PRS landlords corner.

I’ve had threats in the past but those in government aren’t that bothered as long as they’re not affected directly. The show must go on!

Many MPs have rental properties. Let’s hear from them as landlords and not politicians.

If the reason for providing the landlord’s address is for the purpose of contact and serving of notices, etc, is there any reason why a landlord’s agent’s address or a service address shouldn’t be used?

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 25/09/2026 – 11:01
I think it is a dreadful breach of privacy.
Not all tenants are angels like Angela Raynor and the Pennycook bloke thinks. I doubt if the Pennycook chap has ever even rented anything.
As a HMO owner we house some very vulnerable tenants. I do not, as I live alone want certain tenants knowing where I live.

Reply to the comment left by Rose Thornton at 25/09/2026 – 16:11
It’s not just your current tenants but the general public who will know your home address, that you are a PRS landlord, your date of birth, female and come to the possible/likely assumption that you are a female living on their own.

Also, if you haven’t done this already, you can go onto Google maps and blank out a property from view. You can do this to your own house plus any rental properties.

Steps to Blur Your Property. Open Google Maps on a computer or desktop browser and type in your home address. Switch to Street View by clicking the photo of your house or dragging the yellow Pegman icon onto the road in front of your property. Click “Report a problem” located in the tiny text at the bottom-right corner of the screen. Position the red box using your mouse and zoom buttons so that it fully covers your house and any other areas you want hidden. Select “My home” under the request blurring options and certify that you own or tenant the property .Upload proof of address (such as a recent utility bill, bank statement, or lease agreement with sensitive personal data and account numbers redacted).Enter your email address, complete the CAPTCHA, and click Submit.

Sign up from property alerts from the Land Registry https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud

Opt Out of the Open Electoral Register (UK). Contact your local council’s electoral services team. Ask to be removed from the open register (the edited version sold to marketing firms and data brokers). Note: This is free, does not affect your right to vote, and keeps you on the statutory full register.

Redact Property and Corporate Records Companies House: If you are a company director or officer, apply via form SR01 to suppress personal residential addresses from public registry documents where eligible. Local Land Registry/Council: Inquire with local authorities about address masking or redaction if you face documented risks to your safety.

You can opt out of having your Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) appear on the public register by contacting the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
How to Opt Out Contact the Helpdesk: Send an email to [email protected] or call 020 3829 0748. Timeframe: The removal from public view typically takes up to 2 weeks from your request. Bulk Data: Opting out also removes your EPC from future bulk data releases. Important Legal Obligations Public View vs. Marketing: Removing the certificate hides it from public searches, but it does not exempt you from legal requirement.
Wondering if they will be using the existing register to cross reference/merge info to this new database? If so then remove from the existing register and make the process more difficult for them 😉
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/energy-performance-certificates-opt-out-of-public-disclosure

Lawyers need to check all this. For many reasons. But just on the GDPR data protection issues: according to the ICO people must be informed of with whom and how their data will be shared prior to the data being collected. It says this on the ICO website:

‘Individuals have the right to be informed about the collection and use of their personal data. This is a key transparency requirement under the UK GDPR.
You must provide individuals with information including: your purposes for processing their personal data, your retention periods for that personal data, and who it will be shared with. We call this ‘privacy information’.
You must provide privacy information to individuals at the time you collect their personal data from them.’
This can be checked online at the ICO website:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-be-informed/

So this suggests that the government should not asking for all this personal data (personal and potentially putting people and properties at risk) and then deciding later how they will or will not put it all online; “We’ll publish a list of information that the public will be able to access at a later stage.”

We all know the police are useless and even if they cared, they would not be able to address the potential problems this can cause. And we know the government do not want there to be any private landlords and would probably, in my opinion, enjoy landlords being harmed and their homes and families and pets (yes, I know of a threat to a pet too) being harmed, but these data protection laws are in place and I do think that lawyers need to look at all this.
Any data requested has to meet certain criteria. There is no legitimate reason for anyone’s full ID to be given: tenants only need a phone number to report issues, and address to serve notices, etc. Tenants are given all the required paperwork before moving in (gas safety certificate, electrical safety certificate, etc.) and nobody else needs to see those documents. This whole idea presents all sorts of risks (fraudsters, vindictive tenants, mentally unstable people, personal stalkers with no connection to renting, etc.) and yet zero potential benefits to anyone (other than fraudsters, stalkers, marketers, etc.).

Lawyers need to examine this whole thing before it is implemented.

We also need a full explanation from the government of why this is being suggested. What exactly did they see as the potential benefits of this and to whom? And where is the cost benefit analysis of this plan? Have they weighed up the potential harms/costs against the ‘benefits’?

Reply to the comment left by james at 26/09/2026 – 00:03
Is this not something the NRLA lawyers should be addressing rather than touting a minuscule success of preventing a council property licencing proposal in Telford??