Will operators of multiple short-term lets be deterred by registering each property separately?

Posted on 17 October 2024

Please note: the screenshots shown here document the evolution of the design and are not indicative of the final service.

What we tried to achieve

We wanted to find out whether people who owned and operated multiple short-term lets would be put off registering if they had to register each property separately. We wanted to understand if this user group had any specific needs or challenges they might face with a registration service.

We wanted to learn things such as:

How they would feel about having to go through the same registration journey multiple times
If there was anything that could make that experience better if they did have to repeat the registration journey several times
If repeating the journey several times would have an impact on whether or not they decided to register

We also wanted to learn about Management Companies’ thoughts around multiple short-term lets and the registration scheme. For this user group we wanted to learn things such as:

Did the number of short-term lets a client owned have a bearing on whether the Management Company would register on their behalf
How easy or difficult it would be for a Management Company to register multiple properties on behalf of a client

Answering these questions would help us clarify Assumption 7 (“We assume that operators with multiple short-term lets will be put off registering by having to separately register each of their properties”)

How we tested our assumption: methods, validation, and rationale

Our testing approach

We tested this assumption in round 2 and round 3 of the testing with operators. Across both rounds, there were a total of 5 participants that we tested this assumption with (in round 2 there were three participants, and in round 3 there were two participants).

Breakdown of key characteristics of round 2 and round 3 participants that tested this assumption


	Round 2	Round 3
Experience of owner	2 × less than 12 months 1 × 10+ years	2 × 10+ years
Type of short-term lets owned	1 × Privately owned self-catering holiday home(s) e.g. Holiday Cottage2 × Entire privately owned house(s) and Self-catering Apartment and Privately owned self-catering holiday home(s) e.g. Holiday Cottage	1 × Privately owned self-catering holiday home(s) e.g. Holiday Cottage 1 × Individual rooms or annex within privately owned house(s)
Number of short-term lets owned	1 × 2-5 short-term lets 1 × 5-10 short-term lets 1 × 10 short-term lets	2 × 2-5 short-term lets
Number of days the short-term lets are let out over a calendar year	3 × Unsure on the exact amount	1 × let for 91-180 days 1 × let for 181-365 days
Location of short-term lets	2 × North Yorkshire 1 × West Yorkshire & Devon	1 × Northwest England 1 × East Midlands
Self managed or using a management company	3 × self managed	2 × self manage
Places where participants advertise (multiple choice)	1 × Airbnb 1 × Facebook 1 × I don’t advertise online	1 × Airbnb 1 × Facebook
Digital literacy	1 × 10/10 2 × 9/10	1 × 8/10 1 × 7/10
Access needs	None	1 × Dyscalculia
Assistive Tech used		1 × Text-to-Speech & MathTalk

In round 2, participants were asked to test two different versions of the registration journey prototype. Each version allowed them to add multiple properties to their registration but in a different way;

Version 1 was sequential. Participants essentially completed the information for a single property in a linear manner by answering one question at a time (i.e. short-term rental property address must be completed first, then type of accommodation second, bedrooms and guests third, management agency details fourth, and compliance questions fifth.) Once that sequence of questions was completed for the first property, they could then add a second dwelling and follow the same sequence again.
Version 2 was slightly more free-form. Participants would provide the addresses of all their short-term rental properties first. At this point they could then select different properties (in any order) and complete the information required via a task list (also in any order). In theory they could complete the whole application in any order they wished (for example they could complete the Furniture fire safety questions for ‘Property A’ first, and then complete the Accessibility questions for ‘Property B’ second, Bedrooms and guests questions for ‘Property C’ third etc.)

There is more detail about these different versions in the ‘Creating the different ‘Add another property’ prototypes’ section below. By testing two versions we hoped to understand which version operators of multiple short-term lets thought was easier to use. We asked them to compare the two versions they had seen and give us feedback on the usability. Round 3 was slightly different, as we were able to use the insights gathered in round 2 to settle on one version to test with users.

We also asked questions as part of our survey with Management Companies to try to understand whether managing clients who own multiple properties might have an impact on the willingness of management companies to play a role in the registration process. The specific question asked is shown below:

Screenshot of a related question from a survey sent to management companies. The question was; Which of the following factors might impact whether you would register a short-term let on a client's behalf? (Select any that apply). There are 10 checkboxes below with the following options; The number of short-term lets they own, The type of short-term lets they own (i.e. cottage or shepherd's hut), If they paid you to do it as a 'service', How many days the short-term let is let for in a year, Their digital skills, The reputation of your clients short-term let, The reputation of your business, The ability to use a 'digital badge' and/or registration number on booking platforms for registered properties, The fact that it would be a legal requirement for your clients short-term let to be registered, Other.

Additionally, we used the survey to test the scenario of registering multiple properties with management companies. They were given a scenario to follow using the prototype, and were then asked this follow-up question:

Screenshot of a related question from a survey sent to management companies. From what you have seen on the prototype, how easy or difficult do you think it would be to register multiple short-term lets on behalf of a client? Please remember the known limitations of the prototype when answering this question (these are listed above). There were then 5 radio buttons to select from; Very difficult, Difficult, Neither difficult nor easy, Easy, Very easy

The findings from our usability testing sessions with operators and our survey of management companies can be found in the ‘Our findings’ section below.

Creating the different ‘Add another property’ prototypes

First iterations of ‘Add another property’ prototypes

To test the registration process for operators registering multiple short-term lets, we created two distinct prototypes and evaluated user preferences when adding additional properties.

Version 1: A GOV.UK Prototype Kit design, based on DCMS Pre-Discovery research.

This design featured a linear, single-flow journey adhering to the Government Design System ‘one thing per page’ principle. Users would complete the details of one property at a time; after completion of the 12 stages/screens for that property (see below), they were prompted to add another dwelling and repeat the process.

Screenshot displaying 12 screens from a prototype. The screens are not legible but show the number of screens required for the user to complete before registering an additional dwelling.

Registering an additional dwelling screen:

Screenshot of a page with the heading: ‘Do you need to register another dwelling?’, this is followed by a subheading ‘if you wish to, you can register another dwelling within this same application’. Below the text there is a secondary action button labelled ‘Add another dwelling’, another line that reads “if not, continue to the next section.’ and another action button labelled “continue”

Version 2: A Figma design created post-Discovery phase.

This design offered two flows at different stages of the process:

Operators were able to add multiple properties into a summary list of properties, before adding the individual properties’ details in the order they wished. Status tags (e.g. ‘Incomplete’) based on Government Digital Service (GDS) standards were attached to each property, so the user could see the individual status of each property i.e. completed or still requiring information to be added.

Screenshot of a page with the heading: ‘List of properties’, the body of the page has a tabbed interface styling and the tabs are labelled ‘personal details’ and ‘list of properties’. Below the tabs there is a summary table format with two clickable links of 2 property addresses. There is a tag labelled ‘incomplete’ beside each property address.

We used a tabbed interface approach for adding and managing individual property details. Users saw the address of each property at a glance, and the tabs component then let them enter property details and navigate between different sections of content per property, displaying one section at a time. This reduced clicks, and we hoped would improve user experience by offering greater flexibility for entering details for different properties versus the linear approach in Version 1.

Screenshot of a page. The heading displays the property address, and there is a subheading that reads “registration number” with a blue tag that says ‘pending. The body of the page features a tabbed interface with tabs labelled ‘Type of accommodation’, ‘Bedroom number’, ‘guests’, ‘management agency’, ‘compliance’ and ‘payments’. Under the ‘Type of accommodation’ tab there are checkboxes organised into three groups: ‘Home letting’ ‘Home sharing’ and ‘Other.’

We further refined the Figma design by:

Grouping related questions in the ‘personal details’ section
Implementing a postcode lookup feature for address entry

The design decisions in Version 2 did not come directly from user testing sessions, but were made to try and streamline the registration process, reduce cognitive load, and improve overall user experience, especially for operators registering multiple short-term let properties. By testing these variations, we gained valuable insights to inform the next stage of design.

Screenshot displaying the reduced number of screens required for the user to complete before registering an additional dwelling:

Screenshot displaying 3 screens from a prototype. The screens are not legible but are used to show the number of screens required for the user to complete, before registering an additional dwelling.

Our findings

Findings from round 2 of usability testing with operators

All the findings detailed below are a result of thematic analysis which uncovers the most common patterns and trends that occurred when we conducted our testing of this assumption. This analysis does not provide any quantitative metrics, but the findings set out below are the most important and frequent themes that came as a result of testing this assumption.

1. Having to provide details of each short-term let separately would not be a reason why people would not register. However they want to do this in the most efficient way possible.

We learnt from our testing that having to register multiple properties would not put people off registering. They told us if they had to do this using the sequential flow of Version 1 (i.e. answering each question, in order, for one property at a time, to register their properties) they would do this. However, they believed that this would be time consuming, and they would prefer a way that would allow them to complete the registration of their multiple properties faster.

"I’m sure realistically I’d get it done (all of them) in half an hour" 

“I’m thinking of that meme ‘oh god not another one’ (when having completed all the steps for a single property using Version 1 and then being asked to ‘Add another dwelling’)”

2. Participants preferred the ‘Version 2’ layout which allowed them to add multiple properties into a summary list, and to then navigate between the information asked about a single property in any order they wish.

Of the three people that tried both versions of the prototype in round 2, all of them preferred Version 2. They stated that they believed it was the easier way for them to register their multiple properties. The screenshot below shows a participant navigating to the ‘Add another property’ link in Version 2 to show us how they would go about providing the details of a second property for their registration.

Screenshot of a page with the heading: ‘Review your short-term let property addresses’, this is followed by one line of summary table which has three columns, the first column reads ‘property address’, the second has the address of the property and the third incluses 2 links ‘change’ and ‘remove’, below this is a link which reads ‘add another property’ below this is an action button labelled “continue”

Participants also commented favourably on the tabbed layout, as this would allow them to provide the information that they had to hand on any single property more efficiently. The screenshot below shows how a participant was able to navigate through some different tabs in this version.

“(I) prefer this (‘Register a short-term let version 2’ Figma designs) because it feels like everything’s in one page”

“(The) details, properties tab - I like that better, nice and clear, easy to navigate, but get more info in. (It feels like a) quicker process.”

Screenshot of a page featuring a tabbed interface with tabs labelled ‘Type of accommodation’, ‘Bedroom number’, ‘guests’, ‘management agency’, ‘compliance’ and ‘payments’. Under the ‘Type of accommodation’ tab there are checkboxes organised into three groups: ‘Home letting’ ‘Home sharing’ and ‘Other’. There is one checked checkbox labelled ‘flat’ in the ‘Home letting’ group

Although Version 2 was preferred in round 2, there were still several concerns, as well as comments on additional functionality participants expected to see:

Participants wanted to be able to see their progress through registering a single property and also throughout the whole registration process.
Participants wanted it to be made clearer that they would need to register multiple properties together in a single application.
Participants who had multiple short-term lets at a single location (e.g. several shepherd’s huts in a single field or rooms within a house) were uncertain about exactly how they would register them using the prototype. One participant who was letting four rooms in a house thought they would simply just need to register the house and not the individual rooms.
Participants wanted reassurances that they don’t have to complete the registration form all in one go, and that they could save their progress and return to the form to complete certain parts and submit it at a later date.

Resulting service design and prototype design suggestions:

Provide more clarity on the progress that has been made with a registration, and where the registrant is in relation to finishing.
Set expectations on whether users need to complete the application in one go, or whether they can save and return.
Introduce a save and return functionality where users can complete the parts they are able to, and then return with any information which they do not immediately have to hand.

Design iterations for round 3 testing:

Seeing progress through the registration process: To address participants wanting to be able to see their progress through the process of registering a single property and also throughout the whole registration process, we added progress indicators at the top of each page (e.g. “Step 2 of 6”).

These steps link to a step-by-step overview which we also introduced at the start of the registration process, after the start page, so that users could understand the different steps in the process before starting to complete the registration. It included brief details about each step, including adding addresses for multiple properties at a certain point, to let users know they could register them at the same time.

We initially considered using a DVLA-style step-by-step component to show progress through the process, which would appear on the right hand side of every page and list every single step, but it cluttered the pages too much, especially in the tabbed sections where space was already limited.

Screenshot of a page showing a heading that reads: ‘Apply for a short-term let registration: step by step’ it then has some subtext explaining how the page works. Beneath this is a step by step navigation pattern showing 3 steps of the journey of this application. The first three steps are “Complete the declaration” “Fill in your personal details” and “Add short-term let property addresses”

Screenshot of a page showing a progress indicator that reads “Section 2 of 6” beneath that is a heading that reads “Provide the details of the property owner” and beneath that there are two text boxes which are titled ‘Title’ and ‘First name’.

Completing the registration in more than one go: To address participants’ need for reassurance that they don’t have to complete the registration in one session, we added a link to the start page, informing users they can save and return later. This message was reinforced on the subsequent step-by-step page, where users are informed they can provide an email address to save their progress as they continue.

We also implemented a “save your progress as you go” screen, allowing users to enter an email address to enable them to return to their application within 30 days, inspired by the “Apply for a Blue Badge” government service. (We chose 30 days to give users time to acquire compliance certificates if they need them). Each subsequent page now has a “save and continue” button and a “save and come back later” link to further address this concern.

Screenshot of a page containing text and a green action button: The first line reads “You can save and return to your application at a later date if you need to.” The second line reads “You can contact STL England on 0123 456 7891 or stl-england@dcms.gov.uk if you need support with completing your registration.” and the green action button reads “Start registration now”

Screenshot with the following text: The title at the top is in bold and reads ‘Apply for a short-term let registration: step by step’ Below it is a short sentence that reads: ‘Find out what you need to do to register your short-term let in England.’ The next paragraph reads: ‘For your security, your application will be reset if you are inactive for more than two hours. You will be able to provide an email address to save your progress as you go if you want’. Below this there is a toggle that could open up more information that reads “Show all step detail’.

Screenshot of a page showing a progress indicator that reads “Section 1 of 6” beneath that is a heading that reads “Save your progress as you go”. The writing below the heading has a black warning icon, is in bold and reads: ‘For your security, your application will be reset if you are inactive for more than two hours. Provide an email address so your progress can be saved as you go.’The paragraph beneath this reads: If you choose to save, you will be able to return to this application at any point over the next 30 days and pick up where you left off. You can return to this application at any time until 25 October 2024 at 16:59. Below this there is an opportunity for the user to enter their email address and continue to the next part of the registration or click on a link that says “i do not want to save my progress as I go”.

Screenshot of a page containing text and empty text box. The text reads “Last name” below this there is a green action button that reads “save and continue” and below this there is a link that reads “save and come back later”.

Registering multiple properties at the same location: To address the uncertainty about how participants should register multiple short-term lets at the same location (e.g. several shepherd’s huts in a single field or rooms within a house), we added a details component with the text: “What should I do if I have multiple properties with the same address?” The goal was to inform participants that they would need to register each ‘unit’ (ie. individual property or room), rather than just the entire house.

Screenshot of a page showing a heading that reads: ‘What is the postcode of the property you are registering as a short-term let?’ It then has some hint text that reads: “Postcode example: SK10 6NL. Beneath this is an open text box to input a postcode and beneath that there is a details component that reads “What should i do if i have multiple properties with the same address?

Adding Property Details: Following research findings from round 2, for round 3 of testing we also changed the Property Details section for each individual property from a tabbed component into a task list format, to reduce complexity for the user and also enable more sections and longer headings than the tabbed component would allow.

Users were now presented with a comprehensive checklist, asking them to provide information in three overall sections, each with more specific task sections within:

Property details (type, bedrooms, guest capacity, management agency details (if applicable)
Property compliance (gas safety, fire safety, smoke alarms)
Other (nights occupied and planning permission; accessibility information)

We implemented a progress tracker for each specific task section by using status tags (consistent with those used for the overall progress of adding property details). Initially, all task sections were tagged with a grey “Not started” label, and as users provided information, task section status tags updated to a blue “In progress” or a green “Completed” label.

Users could navigate through these sections at their own pace, and they had the option to:

Continue adding information into each section
Return to the main list of properties, if they wanted to add information for another property before completing the information for the current property
Access the details summary page for each property at any time, even if sections were incomplete

This flexible system allows users to manage their application efficiently, completing task sections per property in one session, or completing task sections for different properties at different times depending on what information they had to hand and then returning later. The new vertical task list format offers more flexibility for content updates and better usability on both web and mobile platforms, giving users more control.

Screenshot of a page showing a heading that has a property address and a Task list below it. The task list is divided into three sections: ‘Property details’, ‘Property compliance’ and ‘Other’. Each section contains links with a status tag next to each task list indicating its progress. All tags are labelled “Completed” aside from one which is labelled “In progress”

Our findings from round 3 of usability testing with operators

We used round 3 of our research to continue to test this assumption with any participants who owned more than one short-term let. This gave us an opportunity to test the iterations that had been made to the design.

1. The iterated ‘save and return’ pattern received positive feedback

Participants also realised that they would be able to return to elements they were not sure of at a later date due to the introduction of the ‘save and return’ pattern earlier on in the prototype flow.

2. The ‘task list’ format for adding property details was received positively

Participants were able to navigate around the task list layout intuitively. They typically worked through the task sections in order, using the ‘Continue’ button to move through them in a linear order.

3. Some participants struggled to navigate off the ‘My records’ page.

Not all participants were clear on how they would progress from the ‘My records’ screen to add details per property (see screenshot below). Several did not realise that they needed to click on the property address to continue. One participant thought they had finished at this stage.

“I assume because it’s blue and underlined that it’s a link but it doesn’t say that I need to click on it to fill details”

Screenshot of a page with a heading reads ‘List of properties’. The body of the page has a tabbed interface styling and the tabs are labelled ‘personal details’ and ‘list of properties’. Below the tabs there is a summary table format with two clickable links of 2 property addresses. There is a tag labelled ‘incomplete’ beside each property address. The first address is hovered over by the mouse so appears to be in bold text

Resulting service design and prototype design suggestions:

Investigate the ways in which it can be made clearer to participants how they should move on from the ‘My records’ page; perhaps by including a ‘Continue’ call-to-action button which takes them to the task list page for the first property they need to provide details for.

4. Some participants felt that the ‘Save and continue’ button in an individual task page did not behave as they expected it to.

They felt that ‘Save and continue’ should return them to the property task list, as opposed to being moved on the next task, which is not the purpose of this function in this prototype. This, coupled with the belief that the ‘Manage property tasks’ button was unclear, meant that some participants were clicking through more in hope than in certainty of what would happen next.

Screenshot of a page featuring checkboxes within a group labelled “other”. There are two buttons. One is a green action button that reads “save and continue” and the other is a secondary button that reads “Manage property tasks”, below this there is a link that reads “save and come back later

Resulting service design and prototype design suggestions:

Review the call to action buttons at the bottom of each individual task page (particularly the ‘Manage my property tasks’ button), and consider where each takes the users.

Design iterations following round 3 testing:

Clearer call-to-action on “My records” page: To address the issue from user testing where some participants were unclear on how to proceed from the “My Records” screen, we added hint text on the “List of Properties” page: “Click on an address to add details for each property.” The hint text component is usually grey, but we’ve made it black to ensure it stands out. If this remains unclear after further user research in Beta, we’ll explore other ways to guide users to the next section of the process.

Screenshot of a page with a heading that reads “My records”. The body of the page has a tabbed interface styling and within this is another heading that reads “List of properties” and hint text beneath this that reads “Click on an address to add details for each property.” The tabs are labelled ‘personal details’ and ‘list of properties’. Below the tabs there is a summary table format with two clickable links of 2 property addresses. There is a tag labelled ‘incomplete’ beside each property address. The second address appears to be in bold text. Within the summary table there is a link that reads “Add another property” and another link that reads “save and come back later” outside of this table.

Clearer call-to-action buttons at bottom of task pages: To address the confusion around the “Save and continue” button and the unclear “Manage property tasks” button, we’ve updated the secondary button text from “Manage property tasks” to “Return to Property Tasks.” This change aims to eliminate confusion between the two buttons and their functionality. We plan to test this with users in Beta, and refine further if needed.

Findings from survey of Management Companies

Below is a summary of the findings that came from the Management Company survey that related to Assumption 7:

1. Those Management Companies that tested the prototype as part of the survey found the prototype easy to use.

As part of the Management Companies survey, those respondents who expressed that they would register short-term lets on their clients behalf were offered the chance to tested the prototype via a link. There were then some follow up questions asking how easy or difficult they thought it would be to register multiple short-term lets on behalf of a client using the prototype, 55.6% of respondents selected ‘easy’ compared to 11% who selected ‘Difficult’. Some of the corresponding free text responses were:

“The form is shorter than expected and we have the majority of information required to hand. Some of the personal information such as owners’ NI number may create a time lag… but if we are given advance warning of what is required we can easily collate this.”
“Fairly straightforward”
“It SEEMS fairly straightforward, but of course, it’s only a prototype, so have to wait and see.”
“Straightforward as long as you have the details”
“Seems straightforward to use”

This finding is positive, however it should be corroborated by conducting more qualitative usability testing with Management Companies. As we cannot be certain that respondents have considered the scenario they were asked (registering multiple properties) and are not merely giving general feedback on the prototype.

2. Theoretically, Management Companies are not concerned by the number of properties their client owns when it comes to supporting them to register

When asked which factors might impact whether they would register a short-term let on a client’s behalf, only 1/10 respondents selected ‘The number of short-term lets they own’ as a factor.

This finding seems to indicate that in principle those Management Companies who would register properties on their behalf of their clients do not see the number of short-term lets they own as a reason not to do that task. It should be noted however, that respondents were asked this question before they were shown a prototype of the registration journey, and their opinion could be different having seen the whole journey.

Some of the free text replies corroborated this:

“The number and type of properties is irrelevant - they should all be registered and we’ll be happy to do this for all of them"
“While the number of properties might influence the overall workload, it shouldn’t dictate whether or not to offer assistance. Providing comprehensive support to all clients, regardless of their portfolio size, demonstrates commitment and fosters trust.”

Going forward it would be interesting to understand whether this theory holds true when a Management Company was presented with a prototype of the full registration journey in a usability testing session i.e. when they have a complete view of the specific steps involved in registering a property. This is particularly important to explore further in Beta given that at least one Management Company expressed a need in a later survey comment, that they’d need to be able to upload multiple properties’ details via a CSV file, rather than in the way we’ve designed in the prototype.

Nevertheless, it shows a willingness of Management Companies to support their clients, and indicates that in principle, our assumption around having to register multiple properties separately deterring people from registering might not be true from the perspective of Management Companies.

3. There was some more general feedback on the prototype captured in the survey.

Respondents were also asked to give more open feedback on the prototype. A summary of some of the areas for improvement is as follows:

Text relating to “90 nights” that was present on the start page confused some respondents; this definition did not appear to be something that was commonly known by all respondents.
The ‘Registering on behalf of’ journey needs clarifying as respondents thought this was unclear, particularly as this is the role they (Management Companies) may have when using the service.
There was some data requested in the prototype that is not what they typically hold about their clients (e.g. NI numbers and date of birth).
Completing this for all their clients could be a very time consuming exercise.
A feeling that the fee is too cheap.
More areas of compliance could be asked for (i.e. proof of insurance).

Some comments relating to the points above:

“With 200+ owners we need to provide the data in a csv file which will be quick and accurate. Manually entering each owner will take weeks if not months”
“Should also ask for insurance certificate, business rates or council tax bill, chimney sweep (if applicable), managing agent and booking agent details.”
“£45.00 is very cheap and I think you could charge more per annum.”