Government claim landlords still have a choice over who they rent to
3 weeks ago | 5 comments
Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination
12:01 AM, 3rd August 2026, 7 days ago
96
Categories:
The government has claimed the Renters’ Rights Act cracks down on rental discrimination in the private rented sector.
In a parliamentary written answer, housing minister Matthew Pennycook claimed the act addresses overt discriminatory practices.
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.
Bear down on rental discrimination practices
Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi asked: “Whether the government has considered the potential merits of requiring (a) letting agents and (b) landlords to provide a reason to rental housing applicants for applications being unsuccessful to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and Renters Rights Act”.
Mr Pennycook said: “The Renters’ Rights Act extends existing protections against discrimination in the lettings process under the Equality Act 2010 to those in receipt of benefits or with children.
“The act also 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.”
He adds: “My Department also encourages good practice across property agents. The Property Ombudsman already has a code of practice for letting agents which is mandatory for its members; and we will publish, later this year, a non-statutory code of practice setting out minimum best practice standards, and consider legislation to ensure compliance.
“Our new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman, once established, will be able to publish guidance and codes of practice for landlords, which will further help to drive up standards across this sector.”
As previously reported by Property118, the government has hinted that the Private Rented Sector (PRS) Ombudsman could take into account previous cases of inadequate conduct by landlords.
Tags:
£7, £7000 fine landlords, Matthew Pennycook, PRS Ombudsman, rental discrimination, Renters’ Rights Act
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
Rental supply in the capital slumps following Renters’ Rights ActRelated Articles
Practical legal answers to 10 Renters’ Rights Act questions
3 months ago | 1 comments
Call to fine landlords who discriminate against young renters
6 months ago | 23 comments
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2346
1:36 PM, 8th August 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 08/08/2026 – 09:58
It is not the company with 100 properties that is going to be vulnerable to a fine of £7,000 for discrimination under the Labour Renters Rights Act. The £7,000 fine will not be tax deductible and the company with 100 properties will put policies and processes in place to maximise rents and avoid discrimination, although at £70 per property it’s not much of a risk anyway. However, the public-sector-people levying the £7,000 fines are probably not going to have a go at the big company with 100 properties because they will be jobsworths, risk-averse and the company with 100 properties will have better lawyers. The jobsworths will instead use their new powers to bully and victimise the small HMO and the small buy to let landlord. Small buy to let landlords are the majority of the market and for them £7,000 per property is a very big risk.
A sign on a property saying that a property is to let does not have to have a price on it. Any other advert in any form anywhere else does, otherwise it breaches the Labour Renters Rights Act. Now, because of the Act, any price advertised anywhere needs to be high (i.e. always at the top end of market rent) because the landlord now cannot accept more than the advertised rent and rent increases are restricted. Of course any landlord CAN drop the price if he or she wishes to. But if the family on benefits that doesn’t get the property they really want and are desperate for find out that the landlord actually dropped the asking price from the advertised price (i.e. gave a discount) to get the tenant that they perceive is less risky and can pay the rent then they are going to get together with the jobsworths in the council and use the new process to try to take revenge.
The information landlords collect and the records landlords now have to keep just became really important and most small landlords would be well advised to use an agent. The Labour Renters Rights Act is a gift for agents and this should not surprise anybody because when labour consulted on their Labour Renters Rights Act they did consult with agents (who told Labour what they want from the Act in order to be able to write themselves a cheque) and Labour did no significant consultation with small portfolio landlords.
Offering a discount is now a much bigger risk.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1693 - Articles: 3
1:56 PM, 8th August 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 08/08/2026 – 09:39
Just make sure you keep pictures of the property at check-in.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2346
2:04 PM, 8th August 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 08/08/2026 – 13:56
My agent uses an inventory clerk to take pictures and sends me a record. I am presently renting a house to a family with four, very poorly supervised children. The house is squalid, filthy, and has been throughout the tenancy. Every surface is filthy including some of the ceilings. There is minor damage everywhere, some which is malicious, some caused by negligence, some by stupidity. If I wasn’t using an agent then I would consider using an independent inventory clerk to take pictures in a form that can be used to make a claim for damages against the tenants. In my case, if I wasn’t using an agent, the damage is so extensive that it would have been cost-effective to pay a chartered surveyor to take pictures and produce a report.
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 531
2:47 PM, 8th August 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 08/08/2026 – 13:56
yes always use an inventory clerk who takes pictures.I also ensure they state no mould in the property and all drains and WC not blocked at the beginning and end of tenancy.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2346
3:00 PM, 8th August 2026, About 1 day ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 08/08/2026 – 14:47
With the family I have I actually had a survey of the drains before the tenants entered the property. But the teenage children still block the drains and damage the sanitary ware and I struggle to get the agents to confirm that the ongoing problems with the drainage is misuse. So I end up paying for it. From when it happens, from what I see of the property when I inspect, and what I can see from the inspection cover, I think that it is likely to be wet wipes, sanitary products and probably also condoms.
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 531
11:22 AM, 9th August 2026, About 7 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/08/2026 – 15:00
Good point but if the WC etc was draining according to a third party inventory it must be the tenants blocking it and they should fix it.Of course with such disgusting tenants that you have they will probably flood the house rather than pay to fix the issue.