Government claims Renters’ Rights Act cracks down on rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by Sheralyne Stamp at 17/09/2026 – 17:26
OK, so you have legal advice already.

I gave this interview on 15th April, 2019.
https://youtu.be/6cctEG4sv6Q

Since then the situation has gone backwards!

Funding is too limited and fragile
£41m + £18m (~£60m total) averages under £190k per council. Many already have tiny or non-existent enforcement teams and a shortage of environmental health officers. Money alone won’t quickly fix staffing. Historically, councils collect only a fraction of the civil penalties they issue, so relying on higher fines and future database fees is risky.
Long-term funding plan is unproven.
Switching to Private Rented Sector Database fees sounds good in principle, but it depends on high compliance, adequate fee levels, and proper ring-fencing. Until that system is working, the “fully funded” claim remains uncertain and short-term grants create planning problems for councils.
Discrimination rules will be hard to enforce evenly.
Proving discriminatory intent is difficult. Landlords can still use affordability and suitability checks, creating grey areas and potential disputes. The same under-resourced councils must enforce these rules, risking a postcode lottery and legal defence by Landlords. There is also a risk of unintended effects — some landlords becoming more selective or exiting the market, which could reduce supply for the groups the rules aim to protect.
Overall approach is enforcement-heavy without fixing capacity or supply.
Imposing a new statutory “duty to enforce” on already stretched councils, while depending on weak fine recovery and an untested fee system, risks making the new rights uneven in practice. The deeper problem of insufficient housing supply is largely left unaddressed.
In short: the goals are clear, but the delivery model looks under-powered and vulnerable to the same capacity failures that have limited enforcement in the past.

So let me get this straight. If I choose to let to persons or people that I feel will be suitable to let the property, communicates well & I have a notion that I will be able to work well alongside, but they don’t fit the demographic that the government is trying to avoid discrimination against, I could be faced with an accusation of discrimination? And that’s purely because I choose not to rent to one of those applicants fitting the demographic we are told not to discriminate against?

Isn’t that creating positive discrimination against someone that doesn’t fit with the governments aims of the anti discrimination of all applicants?

Utter madness. It’s my property, are they really saying that I could face accusations if I like the idea of renting to persons or people that I feel is a good fit for me & the property, removing all other considerations?

I guess, until someone actually takes it to a court case level, then “discrimination” has become a vague word to use from a legal standpoint.

Yes, it may be true that we provide the full details of the property. From those details, a lot of people are interested to see the property even if they dont have a budget.
But we do have a right to ask some preliminary questions such as their occupation and income, how many people will be occupying it. Even you state how many people need to be there to pay the correct rent for the whole property, they come in dribs and drabs, single let they are after. They don’t want to provide any of their details at all, just phone number and their fist name.
Without some responses I don’t let them view my property.
Agents show them around without asking some preliminary questions and I have stopped using those agents now.
Landlords should have right to refuse viewing if they cannot answer some basic questions or complete a basic form.
Anyone would want to see a property with the full leisure facilities, like swimming pool, gym etc. Pictures are already provided in the advertisement, so it is only fair they give some information about themselves prior to viewing time.

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 08/10/2026 – 18:58

Tiger, regrettably fair seems to be a word that is less popular these days. Fair means something other than what many of us were given to understand during our educational years. Fair seems to mean that one party does all the work & takes all the risk, whilst others reap the rewards without risk, effort or conscience. Fair only applies when our overlords deem a situation to be fair, not when it actually is fair. It can join the other words, like discrimination in the pile that will need to be thrashed out in a courtroom. I suspect dictionaries may need amending eventually.

Reply to the comment left by Landlord Phil at 01/10/2026 – 15:02
Sorry, but I don’t think the “it’s my property” argument is good enough. Fine if you want to keep it for your own use. Once the property is offered as a public service all applicants must be treated fairly and equality rules must be followed or we end up with notices in windows saying no blacks, no Irish. We all know the result of choosing people who are a “good fit for me” too. Work-places around the country were full of white, heterosexual men in the 1970s because people tend to pick people like themselves. No-one is forcing you to accept tenants who don’t meet affordability criteria or who lack good references, but unless you can point to some objective criteria for your selection, you are likely to be at risk of a large civil penalty.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 09/10/2026 – 10:13
What about people who don’t speak English properly? Are we supposed to provide a translator?

Reply to the comment left by JB at 09/10/2026 – 10:24
My Brother in law rents to a Sri Lankan couple who don’t speak much English. Communication is usually through their nephew and works well. When the nephew isnt around, a translation app seems to function perfectly well.

is this wording within a property ad transparent? To me it is not and will put people on benefits off requesting a viewing or tenancy. what do you the good people on here think?
DSS/LHA Covers Rent X the X is marked by a RED cross. it this transparent or discrimination?
I would not apply to view if I saw that wording within an advertisement to let a property