Digital identity checks and Right to Rent: what's changed

Alongside the traditional manual check described in our Right to Rent guide, a digital route now exists for a meaningful share of applicants — British and Irish citizens with a valid passport can be checked using certified Identity Service Provider technology, and other document holders may be checked digitally where the relevant certified process supports it.

What actually changes with a digital check

Instead of an agent physically examining an original document, a certified Identity Service Provider carries out identity verification, and the agent relies on the outcome of that check as evidence of compliance. It's faster, and it can be done remotely, which matters for anyone letting to applicants relocating from elsewhere in the country before a viewing is practical.

What doesn't change

The underlying legal responsibility for checking Right to Rent status doesn't disappear because a digital provider was used — an agent still needs to confirm the provider used is properly certified for this purpose, and still needs to keep evidence the check was carried out and what it found. Choosing a digital route changes the mechanics, not the underlying obligation to have a defensible record.

Where digital checks don't apply

Not every applicant can be checked digitally — some document types and immigration statuses still require the manual process, checking original documents in person or via video call. Mixing both routes across different applicants in the same household is common and not a problem in itself, but it does mean tracking which check method was used for which occupier, rather than assuming a single approach covers everyone in a shared tenancy.

• –Confirm any Identity Service Provider used is properly certified for Right to Rent purposes
• –Keep evidence of the digital check outcome, not just confirmation that a check was run
• –Check eligibility for the digital route per applicant — not every document type qualifies
• –Track which check method (manual or digital) was used for each occupier in a shared tenancy

Time-limited statuses still need a follow-up, whichever route was used

A digital check doesn't remove the need to track follow-up checks for time-limited statuses — if anything, it makes it slightly easier to overlook, because the initial check felt quick and low-friction and doesn't leave the same physical paper trail a manual check does to prompt a later review.

Why this is worth revisiting periodically, not just learning once

Digital identity verification for Right to Rent has evolved since it was first introduced, and the list of eligible document types and certified providers isn't static — an agent who learned the process a couple of years ago and hasn't checked since may be working from an outdated picture of what's actually permitted now.

A process change is also a records change

When a check method changes, portfolios end up holding evidence in two formats — some tenancies evidenced one way, later ones another. That is expected and manageable, but it becomes a problem if nobody records which method was used for which tenancy, because at that point demonstrating that each check was valid for its method and its date becomes an exercise in reconstruction.

The small discipline that avoids it: record the method alongside the check, not just the outcome. It costs nothing at the time and is the difference between a clear audit trail and a folder of evidence in mixed formats with no explanation.

Common mistakes

• –Not recording which method was used for each check
• –Mixed-format evidence with no explanation of why it differs
• –Assuming a new method applies retrospectively to existing tenancies
• –Staff using different methods with no agreed standard
• –No record of the date, which determines which rules applied
• –Discarding earlier evidence after a process change