Government must release more detailed guidance to avoid misinterpretation of rental discrimination
4 months ago | 2 comments
Landlords could face Equality Act compensation claims and council fines
9:40 AM, 13th February 2026, 2 months ago
36
Categories:
Landlords must be careful about how they choose their tenants under new discrimination rules in the Renters’ Rights Act, an expert has warned.
Under the act, it will be illegal for landlords and letting agents to discriminate against prospective tenants who receive benefits or have children.
In a post on her Landlord Law Blog, Tessa Shepperson explains that if it can be proved a landlord has breached discrimination rules, the tenant could claim compensation under the Equality Act or the landlord could face a civil penalty notice from the council.
Courts have been developing rules for ‘indirect discrimination’
Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords and letting agents are prohibited from discriminating against tenants on “protected characteristics” such as age, disability, marriage or civil partnership, race and religion.
However, these protected characteristics do not specifically include tenants who receive benefits or those with children.
Tessa explains that under the Equality Act, the penalty for discrimination is for the person affected to bring a compensation claim, and that courts have increasingly recognised the concept of indirect discrimination.
She said in her blog: “For a long time, it was assumed that because of this, it was acceptable for landlords to refuse tenants on this basis. However, in recent years, courts have been developing rules for ‘indirect discrimination’.
“This is where a policy or practice which appears to avoid the protected characteristics actually puts someone with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage.
“So, having a policy to refuse to accept people on benefits or with children can be discriminatory indirectly, as these people are more likely to be women and sex is a protected characteristic.”
Landlords should keep clear records to avoid breaching discrimination rules
Tessa warns that under the new rules in the Renters’ Rights Act, which provide protection for tenants on benefits and those with children, landlords could potentially face a compensation claim under the Equality Act as well as a civil penalty of up to £7,000 from the council.
She explains that while this does not mean landlords must accept tenants on benefits, it is important for them to keep clear records to avoid breaching discrimination rules.
She said: “Landlords and agents should treat those on benefit or with children in the same way as anyone else.
“Section 41 of the Renters’ Rights Act makes it clear that landlords can take income into account when considering whether an applicant would be able to pay the rent on a tenancy. If the rent is clearly unaffordable for that applicant, the landlord cannot be penalised for rejecting them and choosing someone else.
“If a property is clearly unsuitable for children, then so long as this is clear and set out in your records, a landlord/agent will not be penalised for choosing someone else.”
Tessa also adds that it’s important, when advertising a property, for landlords to be careful with their wording and focus on the property rather than the person who will be living in it.
She explains, rather than using wording such as “unsuitable for disabled people and those with mobility problems”, which could be read as discriminating against disabled people, landlords should instead describe the property’s features, for example “, the flat is on the sixth floor of a block of flats with steep stairs and no lift.”
She recommends landlords keep written notes explaining the reasons for refusing applications and the selection process, warning that poor wording or weak records could lead to compensation claims under the Equality Act and council fines.
You can read Tessa Shepperson’s full blog post by clicking here.
Tags:
benefit tenants, discrimination rules Renters' Rights Act, Equality Act, rental discrimination, tenants with children
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
Related Articles
Discrimination against benefit tenants under the Renters’ Rights Act?
3 months ago | 22 comments
Government publishes rules for landlords on rental discrimination
5 months ago | 9 comments
Member Since June 2015 - Comments: 333
10:40 AM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
The whole discrimination concept is full of problems.
Some properties are suitable for children, others aren’t (HMOs for example). Bedroom entitlement is a major issue. A landlord isn’t discriminating if they refuse to let a 2 bed to someone with 3 children. They are adhering to the overcrowding regulations. The prospective tenant doesn’t see it that way though, especially if they only earn enough to afford a 2 bed or have a shared care arrangement for their children and don’t technically have all the children enough. It’s an absolute minefield and not helped by different Councils using different interpretations. For example my local Council was perfectly happy for a Ukrainian with 2 daughters aged 5 and 17 to rent a 2 bed, as the 5 year old was too traumatized to sleep alone. The neighbouring Council (where I also operate) insisted they must have a 3 bed.
Benefits is a complicated subject. A single person with no children is almost certain to have affordability issues as the LHA is way too low. Add in PIP and they may be OK.
A single parent will often have ample income especially if they work and/or receive child support from their ex. An earnings disregard of £411 per month plus 45p in every £ plus unlimited child support is significant.
I like to think I don’t discriminate as I let to families, UC claimants, people on PIP, students, young professionals and 15 different nationalities. However, there are situations that would clearly not work or would make other occupants in an HMO uncomfortable. Also, just because I may consider someone unsuitable for one of my properties doesn’t mean I wouldn’t let something more appropriate to them.
We need the flexibility to let our investments in a way that we are comfortable with and not have to overthink what is or isn’t discrimination.
Member Since March 2015 - Comments: 124
11:19 AM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
I predict the additional power given to local authorities causing problems!
Their housing departments are under constant pressure to house people on their lists and are regularly approaching landlords and agents to see if they are willing to offer them rental property.
Are they going to then consider this discrimination when the answer is NO – not necessarily because of the people on their lists but because of the Council’s history of mismanagement and not being available when things go wrong?
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 374
11:40 AM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
More non PC bol#####.The courts are already in a mess yet they have time to set up this nonsense and no doubt landlords trying to evict will be pushed further down the queue.
Really, why do you have to spell out that a 6th floor flat with no lift is not suitable for a disabled person, or a studio flat is not suitable for a mother and child, rather than just say not suitable for disabled or single mothers.
End of the day landlords will take what they want , not what this government is trying to force on them.
Member Since October 2019 - Comments: 400
12:16 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Mustn’t forget to mention what pattern the wall paper is, what colour the paint work is, how many specs of dust on the lamp shade or else face a £1000000 fine!
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
2:53 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
if the council is going to be the prosecutor, it seems the best thing to do is pre letting, ask the council to quantify what IS the permitted occupancy levels of the property as it stands and go with whatever they determine.
The irony is if you offered the property over to the council for temp accommodation use, occupancy levels/accessibility needs etc all go out of the window. They can cram in as many as they like into a property ( a family of 4 or 5 in a one or two bed flat for example) and do not have to qualify why, because the use is ‘temporary’.
Farcical.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
3:05 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 13/02/2026 – 10:40
This article is mixing issues here.
No discrimination if its unaffordable given the income, (whoever the applicant)
Lets say the property is a 2 bed flat, and yes it could hold 2 adults and 2.
You have 20 people apply.
10 ruled out as its not affordable.
Of the remaining 10, all can afford it.
5 have kids, 5 couples have no kids.
You decide to rent to a couple with no kids.
A couple with kids then ague you haven’t let to them because they have kids.
What’s your defence exactly?
Member Since April 2024 - Comments: 20
3:25 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Craziness I’ll always choose who goes in my house and I’ll never be flexible with it
DSS kids pets I’m fine with
3 of my pals who are landlords and have way bigger portfolio only ever seem to have issues with rents not being paid or houses left like a scene from the walking dead so regardless I’ll never touch that group
I’ll not say who or what that group is but there’s a rubbish track record I’ve seen first handed.
With the difficulty that lies ahead with problem tenants I’m even more stringent now.
No more first come, first passed checked gets it.
Now it’ll be having 5 or 6 waiting, meeting them, weeding out the known problem lot and then guarantor regardless if they work.
Prove it’s discrimination, I’ll just say after meeting all 5 I settled with….I got a better vibe from them, they seemed a good fit long term or whatever
Proving any discrimination now will not be as easy as people think
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 781
3:49 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Employers will no longer tell applicants why they were rejected because of this nonsense – in future we must never tell potential tenants why they were not selected.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
4:05 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 13/02/2026 – 10:40
The DWP own rules and LHA rates cause the discrimination in the first place.
Member Since May 2024 - Comments: 204
5:08 PM, 13th February 2026, About 2 months ago
I have a good estate agent that knows the area very well and normally vets tenants, weeds out the ones that can not afford it or unsuitable. gives a viewing to the best candidates and let’s me choose, but will offer advice as she has met them.
I have several tenants on different benefits, some have kids, some have pets.
As I live overseas, I normally don’t meet the tenants but pick the best 1 from what I’m told about them.
I think I’ve only met 1 young couple that wanted to move into 1 of my houses. They were so arrogant towards me and I think when they looked at the state of me coming out of the house dressed rags and covered in paint and plaster, they probably thought I was a tradesman and not the landlord.
If that was the way they would respect any of my tradesmen, I wouldn’t want them as tenants. So I chose a lovely older couple on benefits who love gardening, They have now over many years restored the garden to what it used to be like when I first bought the house.