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 April 2023 - Comments: 176
9:15 AM, 15th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 15/02/2026 – 09:06
Cheltenham
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 12
10:19 PM, 1st March 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 13/02/2026 – 10:40
If the government is worried about housing why don’t the Government build high rise building towers this will eradicate the whole housing problems. Afterall the property belongs to the Landlord and they give it out on rent who they wish to. Period, the risk and investment is of the Landlords so the final decision must be of the Landlords
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 12
10:19 PM, 1st March 2026, About 2 months ago
If the government is worried about housing why don’t the Government build high rise building towers this will eradicate the whole housing problems. Afterall the property belongs to the Landlord and they give it out on rent who they wish to. Period, the risk and investment is of the Landlords so the final decision must be of the Landlords
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 91
1:16 PM, 2nd March 2026, About 2 months ago
… a landlord won’t be able to select a high earning private tenant over a housing benefit tenant who on paper can show they can afford the monthly rent – even though there is a higher default and damages liability connected with housing benefit tenants. You can’t protect against moral hazard – when the tenant doesn’t have a real downside if they don’t pay the rent and can’t pay for damages because they know the council have a statutory obligation to house them and private landlords now, in effect, have that same statutory obligation.
It’ll get worse because some bright human rights lawyer will test whether unaffordable rents to some are in themselves discriminatory. Because of the managed decline the UK has been in for over 20 years government has gradually reshaped the economic framework around what people can afford not what the market will pay. This favours those who can’t afford to pay the market price and the Renter Rights Act 2025 just embeds that economic theory into statute.
Currently the Tribunals are able to limit rent increases to not above market rents but the same Tribunals were used under the Rent Act 1977 and over a very short time period they argued that the market rent was in fact the reduced rent set by the same tribunal. It was a downward spiral until there was no real market rent and rents rested at about a third of the previous ‘market rent’ with tenants mostly on some sort of state benefit.
Occupancy rights for life were granted (the same as today). Capital values disappeared and those that could purchased. The government finally capped it off by granting tenants the right of first refusal on a landlord sale at a price that reflected the secure tenancy for life at a so called ‘market rent’ which in reality was the rent the government was prepared to pay in housing benefits.
At no cost to them but funded through fines council’s are already engaging private Compliance Service Providers to ensure that landlords maintain their properties in accordance with The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 with CPOs ready if they don’t.
Where were the organisations who were paid to represent landlords while these mechanisms were put in place? What other industry would accept this level of statutory intervention and yet it still calls itself the PRS.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 582
2:28 PM, 2nd March 2026, About 2 months ago
I house many HB tenants as part of my business model. But likewise I have no issue in declining their application if I want to, simply on the basis that they as recipients of UC will be in breach of their tenancy on Day 1 . That is because my AST says the ongoing rent is due and payable one month in advance . As UC is paid a month in arrears they cannot possibly fulfil their obligations. I consider that is my defence against any potential challenge under the Equalities Act for not selecting an HB tenant
Member Since March 2023 - Comments: 1506
7:32 AM, 4th March 2026, About 2 months ago
There seem to be a lot of ‘experts’. If you can get landlord insurance then fine, else no way. No ‘expert’ could argue with that