Why Labour needs a rogue tenant database to protect decent tenants

Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act, which was sold as a tool for ‘levelling the playing field’ for tenants, brought into being the new Private Rented Sector database.

Landlords will soon pay to register every property, upload compliance documents and sit on a system that The Lettings Industry Council (TLIC), the industry’s own advisory body, has already warned will become, in its words, an expensive waste of resource that’s doomed to fail.

There won’t be any decent landlords who will dispute that rogue or criminal landlords exist, and nobody seriously argues that they shouldn’t be identified.

But look closely at what this database actually does.

It logs landlords, properties and safety certificates.

What it does not do, anywhere in its design, is log the tenants who trash a property, assault a neighbour, deal drugs from a rented flat, or who vanish owing months of rent.

The playing field, it turns out, only tilts one way.

Landlords are powerless

So, I was pleased to see Haringey Council announce this week a tenants’ forum to crack down on ‘rogue’ landlords but not, obviously, rogue tenants.

Organisers want experiences to help shape the council’s enforcement work.

The councillor quoted had the gall to say that private renting isn’t working and tenants feel ‘powerless’.

Try speaking to landlords who have had tenants not pay rent for over a year while being evicted and then cause thousands of pounds of damage. Then you’ll know what the word powerless means!

Tenants who wreck homes

Essentially, Labour wants every landlord placed under a digital microscope.

For me, the more uncomfortable question is why tenants whose conduct has been proved to wreck homes and terrorise neighbours remain almost invisible.

Tenants will be able to inspect compliance records and councils will gain another enforcement tool.

But what will a responsible landlord receive in return, apart from another password, another bill and another route to a penalty?

It’s a common refrain on Property118 with landlords asking why there will be no equivalent database for rogue tenants.

I think it’s a fair question, but one ministers appear unwilling even to discuss.

That reluctance does not protect good tenants.

Persistent anti-social behaviour is often inflicted first and worst on other renters: the neighbour kept awake night after night, the family threatened in a shared hallway or the housemate frightened in their own home.

A landlord may be expected to solve it yet face months of evidence gathering and court action while everybody else lives with the consequences.

Rogue tenants cost landlords

The same applies to deliberate damage, tenancy fraud and serious rent arrears.

These can leave a small landlord with losses running into thousands of pounds.

Referencing helps but it’s only as reliable as the information disclosed.

A previous landlord may give a bland reference simply to avoid a dispute or help a problem tenant move on.

Of course, a rogue tenant database could become dangerous if it were merely a public blacklist filled with allegations.

Being in arrears after losing a job or waiting for benefits does not make someone rogue.

Nor should a tenant be punished for reporting disrepair, challenging an unlawful rent rise or taking legitimate action against a landlord.

Repeat tenant offenders

Any potential tenant database must therefore be based on verified facts, not landlord opinion.

Entries might be limited to relevant court judgments, proven tenancy fraud, serious property damage and possession or injunction orders involving anti-social behaviour.

Tenants would need the right to see the record, correct errors, appeal and have entries removed after a proportionate period.

Access should be controlled and its use independently regulated.

That would also give ministers better evidence about repeat harm, rather than relying on anecdotes from either side alone.

There is also a strong case for a positive tenant passport, allowing reliable renters to carry verified evidence of regular payments and responsible conduct between homes.

Good tenants should benefit from transparency, not fear it.

It’s not a level playing field

Critics will argue that landlords own an asset and can already use deposits, guarantors, credit checks and insurance.

While that’s true, none of those protects the tenant next door from someone with a proven history of serious anti-social behaviour.

Nor do they justify forcing housing providers to accept risks that the state prefers not to reveal.

There’s also a wider point about cost.

If landlords are funding the PRS Database, it should replace duplicated council registration, connect directly to safety records and help identify genuine risk on both sides of a tenancy.

Not only will that curtail a council’s need to boost its coffers by targeting law abiding landlords, but it also means landlords are paying to make themselves easier to police while those operating outside the law simply fail to register.

Those are the landlords that authorities should be focused on.

A balanced database would not weaken tenant rights, and it would strengthen the position of responsible tenants and landlords against the minority who cause real harm.

Like a lot of empty Labour words, it promised a level playing field, but it cannot keep charging landlords for the pitch, the referee and every red card.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader