Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 10/08/2026 – 11:54
What I have found amazing is that so many Landlords, Tenants applying for a tenancy and also AGENTS are unaware that the new laws re RRA and pets only apply to existing tenancies and NOT the application process for new tenancies. We can still market a property as no pets. We can still ask a tenant if they have or are planning to get a pet and refuse to grant a tenancy on that basis. Due to the increased risks under the RRA I, like many Landlords have become much more risk adverse – I choose tenants who have a lifestyle that is unlikely to accommodate a pet and warn anyone applying that if a tenant insists on a pet I am likely to just sell up. I appreciate this approach is not fool proof but it does seem to focus many applicants with pets. I also appreciate that there are Landlords on this forum who are happy to accommodate pets but it should be the Landlord’s choice and like much of this ill considered legislation should not be foisted on us as private asset holders.

Reply to the comment left by Alexandra at 10/08/2026 – 13:20
I don’t know whether it’s a myth or not but there is a common urban myth that in the post-war/windrush era landlords used to advertise “…no dogs, no blacks, no irish.” It may be a myth about the post war period:

https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/was-there-anti-irish-racism-in-britain-in-the-postwar-period/

We already have anti-racism legislation, anti-sexism legislation and other non-discriminatory legislation: There was no need for labour to put the anti-discrimination clauses (against families children/people on benefits) in the Labour Renters Rights Act and when they did it they gave their real game away. The effect can only be to drive rents up.

However, even though you might feel that you can do it I would avoid ‘marketing’ or ‘advertising’ a property as ‘no-pets’ because it recalls the no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish myth. And in doing so it invites unwanted attention. Instead, I would have thought that it would be safer to have one application process for everybody that captures ‘do you have a pet’ ‘is the pet insured’ the other details e.g. NI for all named tenants and something saying ‘who else will be living at the property [e.g. children]’. That way you can genuinely assess both risk and affordability.

By the way, I just double checked and whilst it appears that the Labour Renters Rights Act does ban blanket ‘no pets’ clauses it doesn’t ban a landlord from requiring pet insurance.

https://togal.co.uk/blog/pet-requests-renters-rights-act
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/analysis/was-scratching-out-required-pet-damage-insurance-from-renters-rights-act-a-missed-opportunity/1456909.article
https://www.totallandlordinsurance.co.uk/knowledge-centre/renting-to-tenants-with-pets

The thing to watch out for with pet insurance is that pet insurance might cover the tenant for a £5,000 vet bill, it isn’t necessarily going to cover £5,000 worth of damage to a rental property.

So it appears that you may be able to require pet insurance: What you cannot get is children insurance and in my experience children cause FAR more damage than pets.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 10/08/2026 – 11:54
The RRA was simply a wish-list from shelter and generation rent. Noticeable that the heads of both have now left their roles. Don’t want to be involved as the excrement starts to fly.

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 10/08/2026 – 16:21
Quite so: Ten years ago my agent used to advise me to hold rents down a bit to increase the chances of a long-term tenant. Now because of the Labour Renters Rights Act, agents (including mine) advise landlords to increase rents at first let, and increase rents to market rent at each review. So if you were previously advertising a three bed semi for £2,2000 PCM and you can see a property advertised at £2,600 PCM then because of the Labour Renters Rights Act you need to advertise at £2,600 PCM. In THEORY you can always come down from the advertised rent….but not if there’s a big risk.

If the family on benefits with 3 children turns up and wants the property you’d have to be crazy to let them have it rather than let the retired couple with two pensions have it as the family with children will cost you a fortune: But because the Labour Renters Rights Act makes it an offence for you to discriminate against the family on benefits, or the family with children, you also cannot now risk giving a discount to the retired couple in order to encourage a long term tenancy because you would be discriminating against a family on benefits/with children and you could be subject to a £7,000 fine.

Disability legislation disproportionately affects small businesses as they have fewer resources:

https://www.uklegalguides.com/small-businesses-and-workplace-discrimination-obligations/

Most labour MPs would not know that because most labour MPs have never run a business. The former heads of Shelter and Generation Rent probably wouldn’t know it either, but I also doubt that they would care. Anti-discrimination checks, additional affordability checks and lots of other extra requirements also disproportionately affect the small portfolio landlord; but Labour would not know that because they did not do any significant consultation with small portfolio landlords….they were too busy trying to deliver what Shelter and Generation Rent were asking for and get lots of media sound bites.

Clearly, many of us are not yet fully up to speed on the Labour Renters Rights Act because it is new and radically different; for example, we are not yet all clear on what it means for pets. But what is clear is that the Labour Renters Rights Act is a disaster: It is government that is putting rents up.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 10/08/2026 – 16:40
I didn’t increase my rents for 10 years; not my main income. Stupid me? Yes, I know! But when mortgage rates went through the roof, I needed to increase the rents (I was a small portfolio landlord and retired due to covid, now single rental) and realised I was £hundreds below the market rent. I am now slightly above after significant increases, and will continue to increase. I ran the shelter rent increase complaint model to see what the tenant could say, and shelter said accept it. My tenant was only too happy to accept the increase this month for fear of me selling (I wish I could!).

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 10/08/2026 – 17:04
YOU weren’t stupid. Ten years ago my agent ADVISED me to hold rents down to reduce the risk of a void period. Now because of the Labour Renters Rights Act all agents (at least the good ones) advise landlords to put rents up and this is as a consequence of the Act…the Act means that it would actually be STUPID not to put rents up now, but it made perfect sense ten years ago if you were a small portfolio landlord and void periods were a pain in the neck.

Small portfolio landlords are the bulk of the market. Small portfolio landlords have provided competition in the market by increasing supply and have also provided competition by holding rents down. What the Labour Renters Rights Act does is to dramatically decrease competition in the marketplace. In fact, the effect of the UNNECESSARY discrimination penalties in the Act have the effect of REDUCING competition because everybody now needs to advertise high and nobody can risk giving a discount because of the risk of a £7,000 fine and this of course will increase average rents….how STUPID is that?

It doesn’t help tenants when governments decrease competition. How expensive do you think your iPhone would be if you couldn’t buy an android-driven phone from Korea? How expensive do you think cars would be if you were only allowed to buy a UK-built car? The anti-discrimination bits of the Labour Renters Rights Act have the effect of reducing competition: It is government that is putting rents up.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 14:23
You can’t require pet insurance. That was a proposal in the draft bill that didn’t make it through to the final Act.