2 months ago | 5 comments
The government claims the Renters’ Rights Act addresses overt discriminatory practices used by landlords and letting agents.
In a written parliamentary answer, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said the act gives councils strong enforcement powers to tackle rental discrimination.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, it is illegal for landlords and letting agents to discriminate against prospective tenants who receive benefits or have children, with fines of up to £7,000 for those who break the rules.
In a written parliamentary question, Labour MP Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, asked: “What recent steps has the government taken to ensure compliance with the (a) Equality Act 2010 and (b) Renters’ Rights Act within the rented housing sector”.
Mr Pennycook said: “The Renters’ Rights Act provides local authorities with strong investigatory and enforcement powers to bear down on rental discrimination practices in the private rented sector.
“It addresses both overt discriminatory practices, such as ‘No DSS’ adverts, and situations where landlords or letting agents use other indirect practices in order to prevent someone entering into a tenancy.
“The government is increasing ring-fenced civil penalties to support a ‘polluter pays’ approach to enforcement of the new tenancy system.”
He added: “In accordance with the New Burdens Doctrine, we will ensure additional net costs on local authorities resulting from the Act are fully funded. To that end, my Department is providing £41.12 million to local housing authorities for this financial year to help them undertake their new enforcement responsibilities. This funding is in addition to the £18.2 million provided in 2025/26.
“Our aim over the long term is to establish a sustainable funding system for private rented sector enforcement based on future Private Rented Sector Database fee revenues.”
Under the guidance, the government list certain circumstances of rental discrimination including:
Landlords will not be able to stop someone doing any of the following because they have children or get benefits (or you think they do):
Accessing information
Information could include:
Viewing a property
This will include refusing to let someone view the property or knowingly making it difficult for them to view it, such as by offering unreasonable times.
Renting a property
This will include poor treatment to make it less likely for someone to want to rent the property, for example, a rental agreement that puts the tenant at a disadvantage.
23 comments on this article
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
2 months ago | 5 comments
4 months ago | 1 comments
7 months ago | 23 comments
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1354
1:02 PM, 18th September 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Sheralyne Stamp at 17/09/2026 – 17:26
OK, so you have legal advice already.
Member Since September 2023 - Comments: 130
1:40 PM, 18th September 2026, About 3 days ago
I gave this interview on 15th April, 2019.
https://youtu.be/6cctEG4sv6Q
Since then the situation has gone backwards!
Member Since August 2023 - Comments: 86
8:22 AM, 19th September 2026, About 2 days ago
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.