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 2013 - Comments: 582
11:59 PM, 14th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 13/02/2026 – 10:40
“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“
This can be ok and not classed as overcrowding . A living room counts as a room you can sleep in. You get the LHA 3 bed rate for a 2 bed house so its a better rental yield
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 582
12:08 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 13/02/2026 – 11:40
“a studio flat is not suitable for a mother and child,“
It can be suitable . Indeed it can seem like a palace for some compared with what they are currently living in . I take single mums with a 3 mth old baby from maybe a sofa in a living room of their abusive partner or a dirty HMO full of druggies. I put them in a safe, clean, self contained studio flat . They are very grateful as is the council . I get the LHA 2 bed rate for that which exceeds what I would get otherwise
Member Since April 2023 - Comments: 176
7:13 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 14/02/2026 – 23:59
We have the Amenity and Room Size Standards Housing Act 2004 published on our Council Website. Does this mean your Council ignores these minimum room sizes when they want to house a family in need and then ignores their own LHA rates and actually pay more for the property than they should according to their own policies.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 582
7:35 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Slooky at 07:13
No. Its all legal .The minimum room size calculation is different to the LHA calculation . Most living rooms easily pass the minimum room size required to be calculated as a sleeping area ( if its needed ) And that is different calculation to the LHA rate entitlement . That rate crucially goes with the person`s entitlement not the property size. So many a 4 bed LHA entitlement family can be housed in a 3 bed for example and perfectly legally
Member Since April 2023 - Comments: 176
7:41 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 15/02/2026 – 07:35
So once again it’s one rule for them and one rule for us because the Housing Act guide does not allow a living room to be a bedroom when the number of occupants is more than 2.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 582
8:02 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Slooky at 15/02/2026 – 07:41
I am unaware of the specific wording in the Housing Act which prevents this? If you have the relevant Act and Section and paragraph please share. It may be a best practice regulation/ recommendation and as such open to interpretation as to what constitutes a sleeping area which is why some councils view it differently. Clearly in a studio flat the sleeping room is also the living area so that’s one perhaps grey area. What rooms are designated as a living room by a family ( or the authorities ) can vary especially in a bungalow for example – where different families quite legitimately choose different rooms for different activities . A Large kitchen /diner means the separate `dining `room is not in fact required and therefore used as a bedroom . Also to add complications . Social services can also have different criteria than the LHA Housing Team. eg Step children and also neuro conditions like Autism can determine how many rooms is the LHA entitlement . It can become a minefield
Member Since April 2023 - Comments: 176
8:13 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 15/02/2026 – 08:02
It does take account of kitchens in bedrooms and kitchens in sitting rooms and studios it has room sizes for all circumstances where room uses are combined so not really a grey area. However once occupants go over 2 it becomes clearly defined. I realise there will always be a bit of latitude. Within the document it comes under the section for self contained accomodation for a family.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 582
8:28 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Slooky at 15/02/2026 – 08:13
Thanks – Have you got a link to the document / legislation you are referring to please ?
Member Since April 2023 - Comments: 176
8:38 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 15/02/2026 – 08:28
Sorry can’t work out how to do it. On our Council website it’s saved as a doc. So only allows a file download and doesn’t go to the council website to allow a link. It allows a share but only to email, WhatsApp etc. Google the title and it will come up.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 582
9:06 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Slooky at 15/02/2026 – 08:38
Understood so no worries . If you are happy to share the name of which council you are with i will have a look at their website and try to locate the said document myself .Thanks