Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government committed to reforming a private rented sector that has too often left renters facing insecurity and unfairness. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 delivers that commitment, and the regulations before the Committee are an important step in implementing it.
This phase of reform includes the private rented sector database, which will begin to be rolled out regionally from 15 December 2026. The service will be publicly known as the Register Your Rental Property Service, but I will refer to it as “the database” for the purposes of this debate. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords to understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities in enforcement. The regulations before us are essential to enable the rollout of the database; they set out the registration framework for the database.
Primary legislation establishes the purpose of what the database is intended to do. These regulations provide the practical framework needed for registration: who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. A landlord entry will contain information about the landlord, including their name and contact information. Where the landlord is not an individual, it will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will each need their own landlord entry, while sharing the dwelling entry for the property.
A dwelling entry will contain information about the rental property, including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it will also include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance.
The regulations also allow entries to be made or updated by others in specified circumstances. This primarily concerns letting agents, as well as, for example, those acting under a power of attorney, a deceased landlord’s estate or a mortgage company in repossession cases. Landlords may delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager, reducing administrative burden. They will, however, remain legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance.
Entries will need to be kept up to date. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where the details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position, and generally must be updated within 28 days. The database operator will be able to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. Further operational detail, including on verification of entries by local authorities, will be addressed through guidance.
The regulations require a fee to be paid to make or renew a dwelling entry. The fee is not set in this instrument but delegates the setting of the fee to the database operator, who is required to set it by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Act. We have separately announced the fee as £65 per property per year, on a pro rata basis during initial rollout, to ensure that those registering first do not unfairly have to pay more.
Subject to parliamentary approval, these regulations put into motion the regional rollout that will begin on 15 December 2026. Landlords in each region will then have three months to register, in turn, with all relevant entries required to be made by 14 November 2027.
This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement this database. The second, to be commenced as soon as possible following completion of the initial rollout, will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. This will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are therefore not in scope of this legislation.
To conclude, these regulations provide the operational framework needed to begin rolling out the PRS database and to make the registration duties in the Act take practical effect. They are the next necessary step towards a more transparent and enforceable system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move that the Committee do now consider the Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I suppose we should be used by now to a Government who say one thing and do another, expecting everybody else to play by one set of rules while they do something else. This week, in a move that surprised nobody, we learned that the annual costs of the football regulator were to be twice what the impact assessment suggested, and that there was a £45 million set-up charge to boot. In the same vein, here we are with this licensing database for rental properties. I declare an interest: I am the director of a firm that lets rental properties and I own a rental property in Norwich, in my own name, as appears on the register.
Nothing in what I want to say diminishes from the positive outcome that regulators and tenants should have confidence in landlords and their properties to weed out the rogues. But, when we debated the Renters’ Rights Bill, we took the impact assessment at face value and assumed that it would reflect reality. It was said that, once it was enacted, landlords would pay a modest fee of about £30 every three years to register their properties under the regulations. As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, these regulations contemplate a £65 charge per property every year. That is a material change. Why is there this 900% increase from inception to reality and why was there not more candour at the outset? Could it be that it was not thought through?
We know that the Government are trying to purge the accidental landlord from the system by regulating him out of existence. This of course reduces choice, reduces supply and drives up rents. We are seeing the near extinction of student accommodation, meaning that students are herded into ever more expensive, specialised service accommodation at ruinous cost. Elsewhere, those with the weakest covenant strength have been put to the back of the queue, and everyone is paying more for less, along with the 190,000 fewer homes that the OBR has assumed will be built in this Parliament.
So we are moving to a system where only the largest professional landlords have the scale, expertise and finance to operate rental properties in the market. We know that Grainger, the institutional landlord, has well in excess of 10,000 properties for rent. Lloyds Bank is chasing a number, alongside some pension funds. While not all landlords operate at that scale, a number of large national agents—Chestertons, Hamptons and Foxtons—sit alongside regional and smaller players that manage many hundreds of thousands of properties on behalf of the smaller-fry landlord.
They were promised a bulk upload system to streamline populating the national database, but that is not how it is turned out. Each property must be added one at a time, and paid for with a separate credit card transaction to boot. Although the Government assumed that it would take about 10 minutes per property, the professionals have still not completed an entry in less than 20 minutes. For the largest landlords or the most popular agents, it will take 200 working days—a whole working year, Monday to Friday, without a break, not a moment—just to register their hold. That is before each landlord has confirmed his agent’s draft entry and the rigmarole is repeated. That 28-day extension deadline is a nonsense that invites people to write their own offence, because they just cannot get it done for want of a system that was promised to do bulk uploads. We have seen the Government cobble together a system used by software remnants from other departments, having totally forgotten the specification, as well as the principles of software design, data and security.
There is to be no concept of a validated Government Gateway login to securely authenticate an entry to a real personal business registering a property. The way in which the agent may communicate with the landlord one at a time is by web permalink relating to an individual property, presumably emailed between the parties—a link that never changes from one year to the next. That process breaks every cyber security rule. It is the sort of behaviour by shady operators that we debated on Monday in the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. That legislation is meant to prevent this sort of practice. This invites cyber criminals to hijack a critical system related to our fundamental national property rights. Can the Minister say which of the cyber experts at DCMS, or any of the other 17 cyber regulators, has certified this obvious non-compliance in an age of AI warfare? Only this Government could press legislation regarding everybody else to follow secure and encrypted data protocols while introducing a system, within a month, that does the opposite. I am surprised there has not been a legal challenge—perhaps there should be.
If that was not bad enough, there is a further aggravation. Some local authorities have decided to introduce selective licensing. Landlords face the prospect of entering the same data twice into two wholly incompatible and separate systems in a further insult to efficiency. I ask the Minister: on inception, why can the appropriate housing standards officers in local authorities not be trusted to access the national database to further their duties? The national scheme should be the death knell for the small schemes. As she knows, some in this sector have considered mining the data from their existing IT systems, formatting it appropriately and sending the printouts to the department in pursuance of their duties. The only person I am going to feel sorry for is the postman carrying those hundreds of thousands of forms into Marsham Street—at least once a year, with repeat visits for gas safety, electrical installation and other regulatory certificates on top of every single tenant change. The Minister might like to reflect on whether she has enough staff in the department to process all these letters, while pretending that a system that is insecure and incomplete, and that creates an extra huge administrative burden and reuses credentials over inherently insecure communication protocols, is good enough.
Put simply, the Government are foisting an unready system with four weeks to go that is simply not ready, documented or to specification. Why are the Government pressing ahead when all the dashboard lights are flashing red? Only a delay at this stage will do to maintain that long-term confidence in, and the integrity of, the database, which has worthy long-term objectives. I invite the Minister to withdraw this regulation and represent it on a later occasion when she can demonstrate that the system is compliant and meets the obligations and promises set out in the Bill. Otherwise, it will be dead on arrival.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as my wife owns rented property. I also note that I have been active for several years promoting the regulation of property agents. I am delighted that the Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook last month announced legislation in the forthcoming parliamentary Session to introduce a regulator of property agents with requirements for licensing, qualifications and adherence to codes of practice.
On the PRS database regulations before us, I welcome the introduction of the database, but the Minister will know that there has been much concern, not least from letting agents who manage privately rented accommodation on behalf of landlords. It seems that there are a large number of outstanding issues around the smooth running of the database, many of which were adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Some of these matters are of a technical, detailed nature, requiring more debate between the sector and the MHCLG.
I want to pick up on a relatively straightforward point. Agents and representatives of landlords are worried that the onus being placed on the individual landlord to start and end the registration process for the database, and to fill in the necessary forms within the required timescales, will create significant problems. This is a function which agents would expect to take on if the landlord asked them to do so on their behalf, just as they do for all other aspects of managing the property and just as an accountant would handle the tax affairs of a client on their behalf. Indeed, I understand the Government’s own impact assessment assumed that letting agents would be able to register on behalf of landlords, which seems entirely sensible.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord. I cannot see how this database will achieve anything more than create a bureaucratic nightmare. It will not improve the conditions of properties to let. It will not increase the numbers of them—indeed, it will reduce the number. What it will do is drive rogue landlords underground.
Furthermore, I understand the Government have been advised that the database, as it stands, runs the risk of being operationally unusable. The database will not, as currently designed, enable landlords and letting agents to view data to ensure the accuracy of information. Without this, it will become all but impossible for landlords and letting agents to check whether they are compliant and abiding by their legal obligations in relation to the database. It risks creating a system in which landlords are held accountable for compliance without being given the ability to verify registration details.
Larger landlords will not be able to bulk-upload property information on the database. This may mean writing individual letters for each property. Have the Government considered the ability to cope with approaching 5 million letters? Letting larger landlords bulk-upload would take some of this burden away.
Officials have said that the proposed model for the database would operate on a property-by-property basis, with agents receiving individual links for each property they help to register and manage. Surely the Government are competent enough to create a system which has a much greater degree of automation. As proposed, it will be time-consuming and cumbersome for letting agents to carry out registration on behalf of landlords. Why should this be any different from someone using a letting agent which already has a responsibility for complying with existing legislation? Agents should be able to comply with these regulations without going backwards and forwards to the principle.
The reason has been given that the system is created in such a way that landlords must bear the responsibility. As has already been said, in any other case of instructing professional advisers—for example, lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers et cetera—it is the person giving the instructions who has the ultimate responsibility. Is it different in this case or has it been created in order to add to the chaos?
A registration fee of £65 represents a substantial recurring cost. Many individual landlords will see income tax rates on rentals increase from April next year and the Government want landlords to pay up to £10,000 per property to meet their proposed energy efficiency standards. We should not see the fee to join the database in isolation from these other costs facing the sector—which, we have to remember, will ultimately be borne by the tenants in the form of higher rents. Can the Minister explain the breakdown of the £65 annual fee to join the database?
The impact assessment accompanying the then Renters’ Rights Bill assumed a database registration fee of £28.58 per property every three years. Now, £65 per property is proposed every year, as the property has to be reregistered every 12 months. How much will go to the local authorities and what will be ring-fenced to support enforcement activity? How much will be kept by central government and what will it be used for? What assurances are there that the funds will actually be used to support landlords and tenants?
I remind the Minister that there are approaching 5 million rented houses in this country, of which a very substantial number are owned by someone with no more than one or two properties. Many of them will find great difficulty in complying with the proposals. Larger landlords, as has already been commented, believe that the Government’s estimate of cost compliance is wildly underestimated.
Not wishing to burden your Lordships, I have not gone into as much detail and as many technical arguments as I would have liked to have done. Will the Minister consider meeting to explore in more detail how the database will operate in practice? Although I believe the whole exercise is pointless, we must at least make some attempt to make it work properly.
Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to the adverse comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, if the Minister allows me, I will just respond initially to a few comments that have been brought up already. Some good points have been made that I want to identify the Liberal Democrats with.
The double entry issue is really troubling councils and others, and that really needs addressing and answering. I think we all need some assurance on readiness. Perhaps my question is: was there a decision about piloting this initially to get out all the teething problems?
On property agents, my deep concern that I take from what the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Howard, just said is one that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me express: property agents are not regulated and they have no professional codes of conduct and so on, just simple guidance. To me, we are giving them an incredibly powerful tool, and I think this is a strong argument for moving on the professionalisation of property agents, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, first reported on in one of his reports. When was it?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Even the sector itself feels that it is overdue.
I supported the principle of a landlord database during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. Looking back at some of my comments, I feel that I was a little messianic about it, because I genuinely believe that this could be a real tool to improve standards, inform tenants and bring rogue landlords to heel. Good enforcement needs good information, tenants deserve transparency, councils need effective tools and rogue landlords should not be able to hide from scrutiny.
So the principle is not the problem; interestingly, many of the briefings that we have received have stated that very clearly up front. That is important. For me, the question is: will this database actually do what it says on the tin and what it sets out to do? As a former elected mayor, I have seen plenty of databases. Creating one is usually the easy bit; keeping it accurate, useful and up to date is the hard bit and can be a real, onerous burden on an institution.
My first question is: are we collecting the right information—that is, the most helpful and informative? There is plenty in here about registration, certificates, licences and compliance documents—all of which is good stuff—but are we creating a genuinely useful tool or simply a very efficient filing cabinet? If I were a tenant looking for somewhere to live, I would want to know whether a landlord had received improvement notices, civil penalties or other enforcement action; frankly, that would tell me a lot more than whether somebody had uploaded a document on time. So my second question is: who is the database really for? Is it mainly a tool for councils and regulators, or is it supposed to help tenants make informed choices? If transparency is one of the objectives, what will the tenants actually be able to see?
My third concern is around compliance. There are worryingly varying estimates of the levels of awareness with regard to this. What assessment have the Government made of awareness in the sector of what has to be done? The landlord most likely to register is the landlord who is already trying to do the right thing. The landlord most likely to pay the fee is the landlord who is already trying to follow the rules. However, the one we all worry about is the one who ignores the system altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, made a pertinent comment: there is a danger of us driving these people even further underground, because the problem is that they are already underground.
Regrettably, my real worry is that, due to the shortage of homes, the desperation of some tenants will always mean that these landlords find themselves suitable tenants. How will this scheme identify the landlord who simply chooses not to register? How will the information on the database be verified, rather than self-declared? As someone who has spent years in local government, like the Minister, I always get nervous when the answer to a problem seems to be another form. The reality is that we need more homes, more investment and, like it or not—as I discovered in my own council group—more larger, professionally managed housing providers that are investing in the sector.
One of the ways in which we are getting these things is through the growth of the build-to-rent sector. These developments often have one owner, one management structure and one set of compliance arrangements across an entire building. So I struggle with the logic here: if the same landlord is being asked, in essence, to submit the same information about the same building, over and over again, through hundreds of separate front doors, what problem is that solving? Does it make tenants safer? Does it give councils better intelligence? Does it improve enforcement? Or are we in danger of confusing more paperwork with better outcomes? Good regulation should be about outcomes, not processes, but this feels very process-driven at the moment. The aim should be better regulation, not simply more regulation.
As the Minister knows, I always approach these matters through the lens of delivery. Who will verify this information? Who will investigate non-compliance? Who will pursue the landlords who never register in the first place? What resources will local authorities receive to do so? How confident are the Government that councils are ready to go and have the capacity to do the job that we hope they will do? A database does not enforce itself, and a database on its own catches nobody.
My final questions are simple. How will the Government measure the success of this? How often will it be re-evaluated? Will it involve more records on the database, or will it lead—as I feel it should—to more rogue landlords being identified, more effective enforcement and, perhaps more importantly, better homes for tenants? Surely that is the test that will matter. Put simply, how will we know it has done the job that we all want it to do?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. It follows the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and establishes the detailed requirements for the Government’s new private rented sector database, as the Minister said. They also introduce fees for registering and renewing property entries with the amount to be determined by the database operator, although it has already been suggested that this will be £65.
On this side of the Committee, we fully support the principle that tenants should be able to tackle rogue landlords and have access to safe and decent accommodation, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman. However, we were very clear, during the passage of the Bill, that this database needs to be user-friendly and light-touch; it needs to enable electronic data entry and minimise unnecessary bureaucracy. The Minister herself gave us assurances that this would be the case. This comes down to our fundamental request: we need a database that works. The noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken have expressed a great deal of concern that the database does not work. These concerns were echoed in the submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has drawn the SI to the special attention of the House.
I welcome the fact that the department has committed to continuing to work with the sector to make continuous improvement. The question remains: can it get it working in the first place? Can the Minister tell us why the Government have not halted implementation of the system until it can be fully piloted, so that the recommendations can be implemented and the sector and tenants can have confidence that it works?
This SI comes at the time of a housing crisis. Are the Government aware that they are already driving landlords away? The latest Rightmove survey shows that there are 2% fewer properties for rent nationally—with a particular issue in London, where there are 9% fewer rental properties and where rents have risen by 3.2%. This is before today’s announcement of higher taxes on landlords. Even the OBR is forecasting long-term increases in rents.
It appears that the database is not fit for purpose. While it may work for a few individual landlords, insufficient consideration has been given to the practical requirements of large-scale, professionally managed rental businesses or the role of agents. As my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Howard of Rising said, large landlords will be required to register properties individually, entering up to 70 separate data points for each home. That may work for a landlord with one or two properties who knows what they are doing, but it does not work for a landlord managing, say, 3,000 properties. As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, we could be talking about 200 days of work just to register those properties; that is an extraordinary figure for a system that is supposed to simplify and modernise the regulation of the private renter sector.
Private landlords already face extensive regulatory obligations, including gas and electrical safety requirements, energy performance standards and, where applicable, property licensing. These regulations require much of the same information to be provided again through a central government database. Why are landlords being asked to enter information that the Government already hold on existing databases?
During the passage of the Bill, the issue of simplifying and consolidating was raised frequently by many noble Lords. The Government claimed that the system for bulk uploads will not offer time savings and that integration will better meet the needs of stakeholders as described. The purpose of digital government should be to reduce duplication, not institutionalise it. Can the Minister explain what appropriate integration with existing property management systems will look like? Can she assure the Committee that this will be fully implemented and trialled before the database is rolled out?
I am also concerned about the severely limited role that letting agents will be permitted to play in the registration process. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned, landlords rely on professional letting agents to manage both their properties and their regulatory obligations, and to ensure that they comply. Under the proposed system, landlords themselves must initiate and complete the registration process, with agents permitted to provide only certain information on their behalf. This is particularly difficult to understand, given that the Government’s impact assessment assumed that letting agents would register properties on behalf of the landlords. For agents managing thousands of properties, this will mean repeatedly returning to individual landlords to initiate registrations, obtain access and secure further information. Can the Minister explain why professional letting agents cannot be authorised to manage the entire registration process on behalf of their clients, as they do with many other regulatory requirements?
As my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, this whole plethora of passwords being shared between different people, properties and so forth raises significant cyber security issues. What happens, when a person at a large landlord or agent leaves, to the hundreds or thousands of passwords and databases that they have to share? Are they shared across businesses?
Can the Minister also assure the Committee that not every individual property under landlords and agents will require its own registration and password, as proposed? This is an obvious burden and a financial one too, and it is on top of the £65 registration fee that, as has already been mentioned, is not a one-off but an annual fee. These costs of additional bureaucracy, time and so forth will simply be passed on to tenants. Can the Minister tell the Committee to which metrics the fee will be pegged? What safeguards exist to prevent this becoming an unsustainable cost? The proposed system lacks the necessary integration to automate changes.
We also raised concerns regarding potentially significant fines. As has already been described, this is a bureaucratic nightmare. The risk of unintended, innocent, data-entry errors is significant, yet the landlord faces a potential £7,000 fine for each one of those errors. That is unreasonable. We need to get the database system working. As others have said, the whole aim of the Bill is to remove rogue landlords; it should not make the life and processes of genuine, good landlords so difficult that rogue landlords can hide in the background. This seems especially punitive considering that the Prime Minister has now introduced a system whereby parking fines can be appealed on the basis of an honest mistake.
As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising raised, the current system provides an alternative for landlords, as they can create their own database, print out the necessary forms and send them on to the department. Many large landlords may find that simpler, because they are able to maintain their own database and assure themselves that it is up to date; they are able to update it electronically and provide their own reports, which they just fire off the printer. They send thousands of forms to Marsham Street, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. That cannot be the right way of doing things.
In many parts of the country, there is a desperate shortage of private rental housing. Yet, whether an individual landlord or a large-scale corporate landlord, the Government continue to make being a landlord more difficult, thus reducing the incentive to become a private landlord. This is already having an impact on the market: not only are we seeing landlords exiting, but I am told by the development industry that the private build-to-rent sector has stalled. Ultimately, it will be tenants who will bear the consequences at a time when we urgently need more homes to rent.
It makes little sense to introduce a database that is not fit for purpose, driving up administrative costs, which will discourage the very investment that is needed to increase supply. I ask the Minister: why does the database not allow the bulk input of information? Why can apartment blocks not be registered where there is a single landlord? Why is there not API integration from day one? Why is the database not linked to other government databases? Why does the fee structure not reflect the different types of landlord? Why can agents not input information on behalf of their clients? Why is there not a longer transition period? Most importantly, has the database been piloted? If so, what were the lessons from those pilots? If not, when will it be piloted?
We support effective regulation, but regulation must also be proportionate, practical and properly implemented. The objective should not be to drive responsible landlords and investment out of the sector. When introducing a database, it must be practical, must work and must have been trialled. I hope that the Minister will consider these points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all of the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this statutory instrument this afternoon.
First, I want to tackle an issue that has been raised many times: the testing of the database. In fact, we have been engaging with landlords, including organisational landlords, in user research and testing since 2023 on a database; as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, that was because his Government had considered doing this before. We have been formally testing since May this year. In testing with organisational landlords, almost 90% reported the service as easy or very easy to use, and 80% rated the registration guidance clear or very clear. We have taken note of all the comments that have been made as we have gone through this testing process. We have made improvements to the database according to those comments and, of course, we continue our dialogue with the sector. We have not just jumped into this in the past two weeks, as has been suggested by some contributors.
It is very important that we have transparency for both tenants and councils; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. We need to keep the database accurate and up to date, which is why we have asked for annual updates: some databases fail where you update them only if you have a change. This is an annual prompt to change it. Noble Lords will be very familiar with their registration of interests, which we have to update; we get a prompt to update that regularly. That is the point of having an annual update.
I will go through some of the issues that noble Lords have raised, some of which were raised by more than one Peer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that our department remains willing to discuss this with anybody who wants to how the database may operate, so, to pick up his question directly, we are of course willing to do that.
A number of noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Howard and Lord Jamieson—raised the fee and asked why it is higher than the initial £20 estimate that we gave. The £65 fee is needed to fund a national database that is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. All landlords will be required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. The fee is charged per property, so landlords will need to pay the fee each time they register a different property.
The fee has been set at a level that balances fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the database and tackling non-compliance in the private sector; that last point is equally important. The fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms. That includes funding to help councils have the staff and skills they need to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. When we talked to the many landlords to whom we spoke during the course of the then Renters’ Rights Bill, they were just as concerned as the rest of us about driving out those rogue landlords, because they do not do the sector any good at all and undercut some of the really decent and good landlords that we have.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Perhaps the Minister might allow me to intervene briefly. I do not speak for Grainger, but I have spoken to a large number of institutional landlords, and they have no objection to providing information one property at a time. They understand the point the Minister is making. It is just that they want to bulk upload them all at once so that they can upload a large number in one go and, just as importantly, pay for them in one transaction. That is the point these institutional people are making. We are talking at cross purposes. We understand what the Minister is saying; it is just that the software is not delivering on that simple outcome.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to take back that feedback. The point about paying in one go is fair. It was my understanding that that could happen, but I will take that back and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in writing, if that is okay.
The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, raised the security of the database. That is important. We are all concerned about cyber security. The database has been developed with security and privacy at its core, using established government and cyber security standards. The department is assessing the database against the National Cyber Security Centre’s cyber assessment framework, and the database will also be subject to penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before and during operation. We are working with the department’s data protection officer on the necessary data protection work, including an impact assessment, data-sharing arrangements and privacy arrangements for landlords, local councils and agent users. The database will also use monitoring tools to help identify potential vulnerabilities and support ongoing security assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talked about the potential duplication with selective licensing. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licences, because the two systems have entirely different purposes. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement.
Selective licensing remains a targeted local tool used by councils to address specific local issues through more intensive proactive enforcement—for example, anti-social behaviour and those types of issues. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately, and we will continue to review how licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses. Organisational landlords will use the GOV.UK One Login service to log in and authenticate. This is a service widely used across government and is built in accordance with government technology standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Howard and Lord Jamieson, all asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability, and requiring landlords to initiate registration directly supports that by ensuring that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset. Letting and property agents will still be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy health and safety information to them.
Responsibility for ensuring that the registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through this database. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his response on the regulation of property agents and I will feed that back to my right honourable colleague in the other House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about what data will be published. This instrument does not decide what information will be published; the public-facing database will be brought forward through secondary legislation once the initial rollout period is complete. At that point, tenants will be able to access necessary and proportionate information about landlords and rental properties, including some of the issues that the noble Baroness referred to about landlord enforcement actions that have been taken. We will carefully balance the benefits of transparency with landlords’ privacy rights, safety concerns and data protection requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also asked how to identify landlords who do not register. When the public-facing database is available, tenants and others will be able to tell the database that their rental property is not registered, as they will be able to check. That can be passed on to the local housing authority.
To conclude, this instrument is the practical next step in delivering the PRS database. It sets the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will need as regional rollout begins. By doing so, these regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I follow up on a couple of points that the Minister made? She talked about testing the database, and I appreciate the comments she made about how it was the Conservatives who started looking at a database. My point is to try to understand what testing has been done.
I know that a number of noble Lords on this side, and presumably the Minister herself, will have received a lot of emails from large landlords, various groupings of landlords and so forth, raising these sorts of issues. Clearly, they are not happy if they have been part of the testing system. Has this been testing where an individual person is trying to import a single property? I think that we largely acknowledge that the system could work reasonably well for that. It was different for multiple properties or for where a landlord was not very familiar with all the regulations and so forth and was reliant on their agents. It would be very interesting if the Minister could give a bit more information about whether this involved bulk-inputting of property.
The Minister slightly glossed over the key point here by saying, “You could cut and paste”. I know that we have all filled in forms by cutting and pasting, but that still means having to go individually into each form to cut and paste—and believe me, from past experience, that is where you get more errors.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
For an intervention at the end of a speech, this is getting a bit long now, so perhaps the noble Lord could conclude.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am afraid that this is quite an important issue, and a number of issues have been raised. We are going to get a lot of data problems here.
My point about an apartment block, again, is that most of those apartments may not be the same or identical, and they have to be registered individually, but there needs to be an ability to provide bulk information and then have separate individual registrations. We do not disagree with that. Otherwise, as I have said before, the risk is that there will be hundreds of repeated entries. Could the Minister clarify that real question: why is this not being tested in the real world—not offline testing—where agents would have bulk entries and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There has been a lot of testing going on since 2023. If the noble Lord is happy with this, I will get some more information about how the testing has worked, what has been tested and so on. However, the figures were fairly outstanding —we had an 80% rating of “clear” or “very clear” on the registration guidance; and 90% reported that the service was “very easy” or “easy” to use—but I can give more detail about how this was tested, if that would help. I will get the noble Lord some more information on that.
It is not in the Government’s or landlords’ interest and certainly not in the tenant’s interest—at the heart of this is enabling tenants to have access to more transparent information—for this database not to work. So we have made sure that it works before its implementation in December, and we will continue to work with the sector to improve it as we go along.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
It may have had 90% acceptability among the people who used it, but my key point was: who?