The Private Rented Sector Database is coming as part of the government timeline under the Renters' Rights Act. Despite the introduction of the PRS Database, Selective licensing appears to be staying. For many landlords, that means the same property may soon sit inside two separate compliance regimes, both asking for overlapping information, both carrying fees, and both backed by enforcement powers.
That is why the frustration from informed landlords is understandable.
Good landlords already provide gas certificates, EICRs, EPCs, deposit protection evidence, licensing documents, tenancy records and management details. Rogue landlords, by definition, are the ones already avoiding the rules. So the obvious question is this:
Will the PRS Database actually catch the bad landlords, or will it simply become another recurring cost for the landlords already trying to do things properly?
What is the PRS Database?
The PRS Database is being introduced under the Renters’ Rights Act. The government says it will begin rolling out from late 2026, with landlords required to register and pay an annual fee, with the exact amount to be confirmed closer to launch. The roadmap says the database is expected to collect, at minimum, landlord contact details, property details, number of bedrooms, number of households or residents, whether the property is occupied or furnished, and key safety information such as gas, electrical and EPC records.
The service is expected to be called “Register your rental property”, which tells us something important: this is being framed primarily as a landlord registration duty, not simply a tenant-facing search tool. The Independent Landlord’s beta-testing notes suggest landlords will need a Landlord Registration Number and a separate Property Registration Number before marketing or letting once the system is fully in force.
Once the database rules are active, landlords of assured and regulated tenancies will be legally required to register themselves and their properties. If a landlord lets or advertises a property without registering it first, the local council may issue a civil penalty of up to £7,000. Repeated breaches, serious breaches or fraudulent information may lead to a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or criminal prosecution.
This is not a voluntary soft-touch register. It is a compliance tool which appears to duplicate many aspects of Selective licensing whilst income generating through the fees and fines.
More administration, less common sense
Selective licensing is local and it applies only where a council designates an area. The PRS Database is national and will apply across England to landlords within scope.
In practice, both regimes are likely to ask for much of the same core information: landlord details, property address, ownership or management details, gas safety, electrical safety, EPC information, occupancy information and deposit-related compliance.
Put simply: two regimes, one rental property.
The government’s own roadmap says the PRS Database will collect key safety and property information. The beta-testing notes from The Independent Landlord show that the property registration process asked about property type, ownership type, whether the property has a selective licence, HMO licence or no licence, the number of households, number of occupants, number of bedrooms, rent details, gas safety, electrical certificates and EPC information.
So there is obvious overlap.
The government’s position is that the two systems do different jobs. Selective licensing is intended to target specific local problems such as poor housing conditions, deprivation, crime, migration or anti-social behaviour. The PRS Database is intended to create a national information base and help councils identify who owns and lets properties.
That may be true in policy terms. But from a landlord’s perspective, it can still look like entering the same information twice and paying twice for the privilege.
Where is the common-sense approach? If a landlord already holds a valid selective licence or HMO licence, why should the national database not pull through the key information automatically? Why should landlords have to upload the same certificates, enter the same property details and answer the same compliance questions all over again? Why should the landlord have to pay again?
At the very least, there should be a streamlined process for already licensed properties. Better still, there should be a reduced or offset fee where the landlord has already paid a local authority licensing fee for the same property.
We talk constantly about improving UK productivity, reducing red tape and using technology better. Yet this risks becoming the opposite: another layer of administration, another fee, another portal, and another set of duplicate questions for landlords who are already visible to the authorities.
The NRLA’s objection
The NRLA has pushed back against expanding selective licensing while the national database is being introduced. Its argument is essentially that, if the PRS Database is well designed, councils should not need broad licensing schemes simply to collect the same landlord and property information.
That point was reflected in the Select Committee report. The Committee recorded the NRLA’s warning that the new database could create duplication in areas already covered by selective licensing, and that the administrative burden of collecting and processing landlord information could divert council resources away from actual enforcement.
That is the key issue.
Nobody sensible is arguing that councils should be powerless against dangerous housing. Councils need strong enforcement powers where landlords are putting tenants at risk. The question is whether licensing is being used as a targeted enforcement tool, or whether it risks becoming a blanket revenue system aimed at the landlords easiest to find.
In other words, will councils use the database to identify and pursue genuinely rogue landlords, or will enforcement drift towards the low-hanging fruit: landlords who are already registered, already visible, and already trying to comply?
That distinction matters. A responsible landlord who makes an innocent administrative mistake should not be treated in the same way as a landlord deliberately avoiding licensing, safety checks, repairs and tenant protections. If the PRS Database is going to improve standards, councils should use it as an opportunity to educate, support and work collaboratively with compliant landlords, while reserving robust enforcement for those who knowingly place tenants at risk.
The Select Committee wants more licensing, not less
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has gone in the opposite direction to the NRLA.
It says selective licensing remains a useful tool and wants government to remove barriers so more councils can use it. Its recommendations include extending the maximum duration of selective licensing schemes from five years to ten years, allowing schemes even where the PRS is not a significant proportion of the local housing market, and allowing licence conditions that require landlords to improve the physical condition of properties.
That is a major policy direction.
For landlords, the concern is not just the existence of licensing. The concern is cumulative regulation: the national PRS Database fee, the forthcoming landlord redress/Ombudsman fee, selective licensing fees where applicable, HMO licensing fees depending on the property type and area, safety certificates, compliance administration, agent fees, tax changes, EPC upgrades and future Decent Homes obligations.
Each individual reform has its purpose. Better enforcement, safer homes and clearer standards are not bad things. Good landlords benefit when rogue landlords are dealt with properly.
But taken together, these reforms risk creating a wave of additional cost and administration, which I suspect will be shouldered by good landlords because rogue ones are by definition aren't going to care.
Some landlords will absorb part of the cost through lower margins. Some will professionalise, restructure or adapt their model. Some will defer non-essential improvements. Some will sell. Others will try to recover the additional cost through rents where the local market allows.
The danger is that the end result is still the same: upward pressure on rents, reduced appetite to invest, and fewer landlords willing to provide homes at the lower end of the market.
Is the PRS Database a money-raising scheme?
The Committee has recommended that PRS Database fees should be high enough to fund a “substantial increase” in local authority enforcement capacity and should provide an annual ring-fenced amount to councils. It also said, in principle, that the cost of regulating the PRS should be borne by all landlords, not just landlords who break the law.
That is the political heart of the issue. The database is increasingly being discussed as a fee-funded enforcement mechanism.
That may be defensible if the money is genuinely ring-fenced, transparent and used to pursue the landlords causing the harm. But if compliant landlords pay year after year and councils still struggle to inspect, prosecute and remove rogue operators, instead targeting the responsible ones, then landlords will rightly see it as another levy on the responsible.
The rogue landlord problem
Rogue landlords are not rogue because they lack information. They are rogue because they ignore obligations.
A landlord already willing to avoid HMO licensing, gas safety, electrical safety, deposit protection, repair duties, planning rules and proper tenancy paperwork may also avoid the database.
So the database only works if it is connected to effective enforcement.
It needs to be linked with council tax data, personal and company tax records, EPC records, deposit protection data, HMO licensing records, planning enforcement, complaints, benefits data, Land Registry information and online advertising platforms. Letting agents and portals will also have a role because advertisements will need the relevant registration numbers. Agents and portals such as Rightmove and Zoopla are expected to have duties around ensuring the registration numbers appear in listings once the rules are in force.
Our view
The PRS Database is not automatically a bad idea and a well-designed national register could be useful. It could give tenants better transparency, help good landlords demonstrate compliance, and give councils better intelligence to identify unregistered and unsafe rental properties.
But landlords are right to be wary. If the database simply charges compliant landlords an annual fee while councils continue to run separate licensing schemes asking for much of the same paperwork, it will feel like double charging. If the money genuinely funds targeted enforcement against rogue landlords, many good landlords may accept it, because proper enforcement improves standards across the sector and protects the reputation of responsible housing providers.
The problem is delivery.
Many local authorities are under serious financial pressure, and several have issued section 114 notices in recent years. Even where new fee income is collected, effective enforcement still requires trained officers, good data systems, legal support, inspection capacity and the political will to pursue landlords who deliberately operate under the radar.
That is not easy. The risk is that councils focus on the landlords who are easiest to find: those already registered, licensed, visible and trying to comply. That could lead to responsible landlords being penalised for minor administrative mistakes, while the worst operators remain hidden unless councils have the resources and systems to track them down.
That would be the wrong outcome.
Good landlords should not object to transparency or proper enforcement. But they are entitled to expect common sense, proportionality and accountability. Innocent mistakes should be dealt with through guidance and correction, not treated as revenue opportunities. Robust penalties should be reserved for those who deliberately avoid the rules, ignore safety obligations or place tenants at risk.
So the real test is this:
Does the PRS Database make life harder for rogue landlords, or just more expensive for good ones?
Until government can answer that convincingly, landlord scepticism is entirely justified.
Quoc and Tu
Sentinel - "Doing things right"
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for general information only and does not constitute legal, financial or other professional advice. No representation or warranty is given as to its accuracy or completeness and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Sentinel accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on it, including any errors or omissions.