In particular, landlords are waiting to learn exactly what ‘required information’ they will need to provide before being allowed to legally let a property. With the system scheduled to launch in late 2026, concerns are mounting about how far-reaching the scheme could be and what it will mean for compliance, enforcement, and the everyday running of rental businesses.
The Renters’ Rights Act will make registration with the PRS database mandatory for all landlords and their properties. Each registration will carry a fee, and non-compliance could result in significant penalties—up to £7,000 for a first offence and as much as £40,000 for repeat breaches.
Importantly, any property not registered on the database cannot be legally rented out or advertised. In addition, landlords will be unable to pursue eviction proceedings if the property does not hold a valid database number.
Every rental listing will be required to carry a unique property identifier, giving prospective tenants access to a centralised profile before arranging a viewing.
Ministers argue that the new database will improve transparency and strengthen enforcement, though the precise details landlords must provide have not yet been confirmed.
The core information is expected to include safety certificates for gas and electricity, proof of deposit protection, and ownership records—forming the basic layer of data that landlords will need to submit.
The forthcoming Private Rented Sector (PRS) Database will replace the existing Rogue Landlords Database, expanding access to information. Under the new system, certain offence details will be made viewable to tenants and prospective renters. The move has already prompted concerns about how enforcement records will be interpreted publicly, and whether landlords could face reputational damage even after issues have been resolved.
Uncertainty also surrounds how far the Government intends to extend reporting requirements. Officials have suggested that a property’s marketing history could be included, covering when it was advertised, the rent charged, and the start date of tenancies. Such records would provide local authorities with a valuable tool in tackling unlawful rent increases. The proposals come as new rules prepare to cap rent rises at one per calendar year, limit increases to the market rate, and ban rent review clauses altogether.
Tribunals tasked with assessing rent fairness are likely to rely heavily on marketing records. Access to the original advertised rent, along with any subsequent increases, would provide crucial context and for that reason it seems unlikely these elements will be left out of the new database.
Marketing data is also expected to become a key tool in enforcing stricter eviction rules. Landlords who reclaim possession on grounds such as selling the property, moving in themselves, or housing a relative will face a 12-month ban on re-letting. Should the property be advertised again within that period, landlords more than will have to face enforcement action, financial penalties, or tribunal proceedings. A digital audit trail of marketing dates will give councils a clearer, more reliable basis for investigations.
Private rented sector enforcement and unintended consequences because the Renters’ Rights Act also strengthens tenants’ ability to pursue Rent Repayment Orders (RROs). The claims could be worth two years’ rent where landlords unlawfully re-let a property after a prohibited eviction. With the PRS database acting as a central evidence source, councils and legal representatives will have unprecedented visibility over landlord activity.
A likely side-effect is the growth of claims-handling firms looking to capitalise on the enlarged RRO market because observers have already expected more aggressive case-finding as the database makes it significantly easier to identify potential breaches. For compliant landlords, this raises questions about data security, context and the risk of misinterpretation.
Although the Government insists it wants to balance transparency with landlord privacy, the extent of public access remains politically contentious. Publishing property-level information, enforcement actions and marketing history could expose landlords to claims of disproportionate scrutiny at a time when regulatory burdens and operating costs are already rising.