Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Debate between Lord Howard of Rising and Baroness Thornhill

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Grand Committee

[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?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Howard of Rising and Baroness Thornhill

Committee stage
Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to which I have added my name. I endorse what she said just now when she spoke to the amendments.

When I spoke to the fourth group, I pointed out that, as presently drafted, the Bill will, at a conservative estimate, give rise to 1 million applications per annum to the rent tribunals. Other noble Lords have commented on the problems which will occur. The rent tribunals will be overwhelmed. With the delay for any rent increase, this will amount to a de facto rent control, with a corresponding and inevitable loss of rental accommodation when landlords disappear from the market as they cease to be able to cope with the ever-rising costs, not least the cost of increasing regulation.

I spoke at Second Reading to the problems in Berlin, where rent controls had to be abandoned owing to the lack of rental accommodation. These amendments would help introduce some realism into the system, so that applications to the rent tribunals are for genuine reasons and not merely because it would be silly not to go to the rent tribunal when there is no risk and a possible gain.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I had thought that there would be a few more speakers than that, but hey.

I wish I could be half as certain about what is going to happen in the future as some noble Lords here—they must have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. I feel this Bill is almost an act of faith. It is quite obvious that we believe that it is going to do good things and that Armageddon will not happen. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, argued her case very well and sincerely, and likewise she believes that. At the moment, neither side really knows what is going to happen. To use the cliché: only time will tell.

The problem with so many amendments being regrouped is that we are into groundhog day, so I will be brief. As previously stated, we do not support amendments that would disincentivise tenants challenging rent rises and feel that most of these amendments fall into that category. The Bill is about a power balance between the tenant and the landlord, and is a genuine attempt to redress that balance. A lot of the amendments and statements made by some noble Lords want to maintain the status quo; for us on these Benches, that is an imbalance. We are just going to have to disagree about that.

The noble Baroness referred to the realities of the housing market. Our interpretation is that landlords can charge whatever they want—whatever the market will sustain—and we do not believe that that is right. In doing so, I genuinely believe we are creating an underclass of people who will never be able to fit into the private rented sector. That is perhaps an argument for another day.

The Minister has perhaps already answered Amendment 105, but I am quite happy to hear it again, given that I agree with the noble Baroness that such a review is important and necessary.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on rent regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.

As I set out earlier, the Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent amounts. This is a central aim of the Government’s reform agenda and reflects our manifesto commitment. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords—let us face it, most of them are good, but there are some unscrupulous ones—using rent increases as a back door means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to reflect market rates.

We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe a rent increase is above market rates. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. We need to think about possible triage arrangements if there is no agreement between them.

We anticipate that our reforms will lead to some increases in cases, but, as I have already stated, we are working closely with the judiciary to ensure the tribunal has the capacity to deal with cases. In the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as on reviewing resourcing and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand. I am not sure if it will be 1 million applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, but we anticipate that there will be some increase initially, until the way that this works drives down demand in the future—which I think it will. This is part of our wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for the changes to case loads and procedures which will be required for our reforms.

As now, tenants will be able to challenge the rent payable in the first six months of a tenancy if it is above market rate at the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal can determine the open market rent only to be lower than or the same as the tenancy rent itself. The tribunal will not be able to increase the rent above the amount originally proposed by the landlord. We see this as a rebalancing mechanism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said.

Amendment 92 seeks to allow the tribunal to determine the open market rent to be higher than that originally proposed by the landlord. We believe that limiting the tribunal to determine a rent to be either the same as the landlord themselves proposes or an amount lower than this is fair to both parties. If landlords have agreed a rent that they consider to be acceptable at the beginning of the tenancy, they should have no fear of a challenge at tribunal.

I turn to Amendment 93. This Bill enables a tenant during the first six months of a tenancy to challenge the rent payable. It is an important provision that should stop a minority of unscrupulous landlords exploiting tenants desperate to find a new home. It strengthens our ban on rental bidding, ensuring that any landlords who seek to charge over the odds can be challenged. When a tenant challenges their rent, the Bill states that the start date of the new rent determined by the tribunal

“must not be earlier than the date of the application”.

This reflects Section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, where a similar provision already exists to allow backdating of a determination where a tenant has challenged an excessive rent.

Amendment 93 would prevent a tribunal backdating the determination of the new rent payable to the date of the tenant’s application. It would mean that the new rent could take effect only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. I understand that the purpose of this is to ensure that the landlord will not have to repay the difference in rents back to the tenant. The Government encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what rents are sustainable for both parties. The Bill levels the playing field to enable a more equitable discussion about levels of rent before anything comes to the tribunal. To be clear, the aim of this is to prevent as many cases as possible ending up in court action.

In our view, the noble Baroness’s amendment would limit the ability of tenants in the first six months of an above-market tenancy to get justice for the period that the case is in the courts. It would also increase the risk that landlords would seek to exploit desperate tenants by extracting above-market rents. I am really concerned about that, because one of the key principles of the Bill is to stop that happening.