1 month ago | 5 comments
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.
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.
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
Previous Article
Rental supply in the capital slumps following Renters’ Rights Act
1 month ago | 5 comments
3 months ago | 1 comments
6 months ago | 23 comments
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2436
4:46 PM, 22nd August 2026, About 51 minutes ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 22/08/2026 – 13:49
The other consideration to remember is that if you are advertising then you now have to include an amount and if a tenant who has a pet applies for the property the Labour Renters Rights Act prevents you from accepting more than the advertised rent (to cover the increased costs and risks) even if the tenant offers it. I have accepted pets in the past but they have always cost me more than the additional costs they have incurred because the tenant has challenged the request to withhold the deposit. So I would never accept a pet unless I could increase the rent to cover the additional costs and risks; but the Labour Renters Rights Act stops me doing this.
I use an agent: If a tenant were to make a request to have a pet DURING a tenancy I would expect the agent to:
1. Advise me that they cannot manage the risk of the pet, or;
2. Tell me what the microchipping status of the pet is and what it is insured for, and
3. Tell me by how much I can increase the rent.
If the agent doesn’t do these things then it’s not a good agent. If the agent tries to get me to accept the responsibility of saying yes or no to the request for the pet then it’s a really bad agent.