Government publishes rules for landlords on rental discrimination
5 months ago | 9 comments
Discrimination against benefit tenants under the Renters’ Rights Act?
8:35 AM, 20th January 2026, 3 months ago
22
The Renters’ Rights Act is trying to prevent overt discrimination (blanket no DSS policies) when private letting.
At the moment, if a tenant approaches you, and they are claiming benefits at an existing address, then this claim is tied to this specific circumstance at this particular time, i.e. at X address and X benefit subsidy is agreed according to the claimant’s own specifics.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), who pay the contribution towards housing costs according to the person’s claim, will only reassess the claim and, ergo, the level of rent subsidy it will make only AFTER the tenant has declared a change of circumstance. Therefore, the tenant will have already moved and been supplied a copy of a signed AST.
How is it possible then that an applicant who is receiving any rent subsidy can provide evidence that the affordability criteria can be met until they have moved in?
The landlord has no idea what the current claim involves and how it will be affected by a change in circumstance, and neither does the DWP until it happens. At the application stage, therefore, the amount of rent subsidy that may be granted to the claimant is unconfirmed.
Given that no landlord is legally mandated to let a property to anyone who cannot prove affordability BEFORE a tenancy can be offered, is this now what we will all be focusing on to avoid accusations of discrimination when letting?
Thanks,
Reluctant landlord
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
Council to force sale of empty houses but not second homesNext Article
How to Present Your Portfolio to a Commercial LenderRelated Articles
Landlord discrimination – the last straw?
2 years ago | 34 comments
The courts discriminated against me just because I’m a landlord?
2 years ago | 18 comments
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3556 - Articles: 5
10:06 AM, 22nd January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 21/01/2026 – 17:36
its also a business hazard/heightened risk first and foremost – which is why it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to always ask for a personal guarantor when the rent/majority of the rent is ONLY provided by the state because it is only based on the personal circumstances of the applicant (which you have no understanding of and which can change at any time without your knowledge).
I think it may be best to state post May 1st every applicant may need the use of a guarantor (carte blanche statement as to not ‘discriminate’) and then each application is looked at on a purely business risk basis just as other businesses would do the same.
The tenant is to be reminded that there are companies that can be approached and used for guarantor purposes if they do not have someone that can/is willing to stand for them in this role.
Member Since May 2024 - Comments: 12
8:33 PM, 22nd January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 21/01/2026 – 08:56
Agreed RE means Vs non means tested benefits. However good luck explaining this to your average estate agent. It’s like they come from a factory where the archetypal media coined benefits villain (sky TV, range rover, cigarette etc etc) is on a huge poster on the wall – and they cannot leave till they chant about benefits scum. They don’t care if kids are disabled or you care for someone, everyone’s scum. If net income is the same from employment you’re a better person and that’s that.
However RE means tested “the point still stands that this is hypothetical” that’s not quite correct- you can calculate and get ‘proof’ of it in advance. Not just a benefit calculator result, but the UC award statement. The ‘entitlement before deductions’ shows everything. Right now a T could be working and after deductions only gets £10 (absolutely worth it, due to the childcare costs rebate). But the entitlement available shows what’s available if one day after tenancy singing they’re made redundant, health changes or whatever else.
In fact, thorough referencing should include benefits entitlement assesment – but no one does it. Presumably rent insurance is for those worst case / outlier scenarios, so it’s really not such a wild idea.