Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 13:05
The difficulty here is this bit about the statement…a copy of the notes you took…. because the council might well ask for these and also the tenant might ask for this as part of a subject access request: So be very careful over what you record when considering potential tenants. It may be easier just to record that other tenants more easily satisfied the credit requirements. However, when considering the benefits applicant you DO need to take account of their potential benefits payments and so you need last two years of tax return or SA302 showing income from ALL sources, including benefits. This will include such things as state pension, working families tax credit, child tax credit and ALL other benefits. But whether the council requests it or not you are NOT obliged to provide any details that you have collected on the successful applicants and not only are you not obliged to provide these details, you would be breaching data protection law if you were to do it. The last two or three months of salary or wages slips is not enough these days and especially in this post Rachel Reeves economic climate. The tenant could easily have lost his or her job three months after you hand the keys over because of the Rachel Reeves jobs taxes.

It is best not take any notes if you do not have to or at least take the minimum of notes.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 04/08/2026 – 13:05
As someone said earlier you ask all prospective tenants to complete exactly the same application form (and sign it), so if they lie you have something to show in court, but at the end of the day you accept the tenant that suits YOU and YOUR property the best and it may not be just the income they receive. The only problem i see is if you use a letting agent they may want to charge you more to deal with a long list of your requirements now needed because of this dreadful Act.I agree with the above that rent guarantee might be necessary and all applicants will have to comply with those conditions. How we are going to recoup all these add-ons plus extra 2% tax, landlord and ombudsman registration fees though is beyond me.

Reply to the comment left by Michele Dobson at 03/08/2026 – 08:36
Are character or landlord references worth the paper they are written on?

Reply to the comment left by David at 04/08/2026 – 14:34
This is correct: As a consequence of the Act, landlords are going to need a lot more information than before…..for benefits tenants they are going to NEED EVIDENCE of all income and also NEED EVIDENCE OF ENTITLEMENT to income from benefits, in writing.

But in data protection law everything that you record that you do not NEED is a risk to you. If you record ‘notes’ from which the council may infer that you had a bias against benefits tenants then recording these details is a RISK to you and you should not record them. You should instead record that the other tenants more easily satisfied screening. To avoid ‘discrimination’ you need a process that applies to ALL tenants without bias and this does of course mean that you need a great deal more financial (sensitive) personal information. That’s not your fault as a landlord, it is one of the consequences of this dreadful act.

Just because the Labour Renters Rights Act says that you cannot discriminate against benefits tenants this does not mean that you have to take them. The Labour Renters Rights Act increases landlords’ risks, increases landlords’ costs, and is driving rents up. It is government that is driving rents up. If the government GENUINELY wanted to do something to minimise the risk of discrimination against benefits tenants then it could:

(1) Change the law so that the council/housing benefits people CANNOT come after the landlord if it subsequently comes to light that the tenant was not eligible for housing benefit (the landlord has no powers to check beyond the point at which you are assessing affordability).

(2) Change the law such that the police and council are obliged to provide the landlord with evidence of antisocial behaviour in a form that the landlord can use to evict the tenant.

But whilst I am happy to be proven wrong about this I doubt the government will take the steps above because I already suspect that this government is not GENUINE. In the meantime, the rental market has been changed by the Labour Renters Rights Act, this has dramatically increased risk for landlords, it will drive rents up along with the risks, and all that landlords and their agents can do is raise rents and take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

Reply to the comment left by David at 15:41
In isolation no, landlord or character references are not worth the paper they are written on, although you should still ask for them. You could specify that you want to do a property inspection of the tenants current rental property in lieu of those references, or perhaps request a copy of the check-out inventory report.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 04/08/2026 – 13:21
My understanding is that a tenant who is wholly dependent on benefits does not have to do a tax return and neither can they get an SA302 statement. It wouldn’t help that much anyway as their housing allowance is area/property/circumstance dependent.

Not only are Councils entitled by the legislation to collect data to assist an enquiry, but the have powers in certain circumstances to force entry to a landlords place of work, (not home) and seize documents, laptops, mobile phones and anything else they deem relevant. Landlords must review their GDPR privacy notices in light of the RRA to include reference to unlimited sharing of data with the Council. They must also ensure they’re giving a copy of their notice to applicants as well as tenants.

Reply to the comment left by David at 14:34
“…at the end of the day you accept the tenant that suits YOU and YOUR property the best…”
I agree, as long as you can show evidentially that your decision was not discriminatory. I would advise all landlords to get proper advice on what constitutes both direct and indirect discrimination and on how to keep compliant records when considering applicants.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 04/08/2026 – 17:27
Those whose sole income is benefits don’t pay tax for some inexplicable reason. However, how would that work if they are also getting their state pension ‘benefit’, which is taxable?

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 04/08/2026 – 17:27
A tenant who is on benefits does have to do a tax return if they are earning anything else. Some have self-employed income (declared or undeclared). When I used to take benefits tenants they were all moonlighting and that’s the principle reason that benefits tenants are high risk (the housing benefits people can get the money back from you as the landlord). Once you’ve let them into your property you have no rights at all as a landlord to check that they are entitled to benefits. The only time you can check is before you’ve entered into a tenancy agreement and handed them the keys.

There are other benefits such as state pensions, child tax credit, working families tax credit, universal credit that are either work based or must be declared, such as is the case where pensioners work self-employed/part time to top up their pensions. As a landlord you have every right to check for evidence of all forms of income.

But in order not to discriminate you should request a tax return or SA302 from ALL applicants….otherwise of course you would be discriminating. The last 2-3 months of payslips do not give you any indication of whether an applicant is likely to be in work in six months time when you’ve handed them the keys. If you can see that they’ve been working for the last two years and they lose their jobs there’s a greater chance that they will get another one.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 17:36
What I am saying is that if you make acceptance dependent on their ability to provide an SA302 or tax return as part of the referencing, you are immediately discriminating against those benefits tenants who don’t have to, (not to mention PAYE employees).