3 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.
32 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.
3 months ago | 5 comments
5 months ago | 1 comments
8 months ago | 23 comments
Member Since June 2017 - Comments: 145
12:50 PM, 9th October 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by DPT at 09/10/2026 – 10:13
And you’re probably right. A good fit for me or the property isn’t likely to be a good enough argument in a court case. Which really quite illustrates my point.
It’s my house, paid for with my money & it’s my responsibility to ensure it is maintained well, remains financially viable & continues to provide suitable housing for those residing in it.
If I believe that one applicant is a better fit for the property & one that I can have a good working relationship with, rather than the next person, then surely it is my right to gauge this as a method for a successful outcome. I don’t care about race, colour, creed, religion, sexual orientation or family status. I simply expect to find a candidate that I share enough values with to ensure the rent is paid, the property is treated well & someone that will work with me to solve any problems that occur during their tenancy.
It’s not even profiling. Insurance companies are allowed to profile us. Even airlines profile passengers (yes, they really do, trust me on that I know a thing or 2 about airlines). When affordability checks are carried out, that’s a form of profiling.
So it’s simple. If I have 10 applicants, and I often do, if I choose 1 over the others, it looks like I’m potentially expecting a wave of discrimination claims from the other 9. That’s really not right is it?
Am I going to have to prove that my choice was the most in line with what the government sees as non discrimination? Or do I still have the freedom of choice over who I choose to be the caretaker of my investment?
Member Since June 2017 - Comments: 145
12:59 PM, 9th October 2026, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by JB at 09/10/2026 – 10:24
If I were to try to conclude a deal of any type in a country that doesn’t share my native tongue, I would do all possible to ensure that their language is respected by employing whatever means portrays me in a positive manner. I only hope for the same courtesy in return.
I cannot be expected to be able to communicate in every language that is spoken throughout the world, just in case I may find an applicant that I do not share a language with.
I know, this could be a punt at claiming a racist standpoint, which I won’t rise to.
I’d welcome a translator of any kind. Just because a person doesn’t speak the language that is native to this country, it doesn’t make them uncommunicative.