The rental discrimination rules in the Renters’ Rights Act

The Renters’ Rights Act has banned “rental discrimination”. This is a new legal concept which prevents landlords and letting agents from discriminating against prospective tenants or tenants because they have children or because they receive benefits.

Although there is high awareness of the new rules banning rental discrimination, the rules are not well understood. Landlords can still choose the most suitable applicant, but they cannot turn down applicants simply because they have children or receive benefits, unless they have a good reason.

This blog post explains what the Renters’ Rights Act actually prohibits, and what landlords can take into account when selecting tenants. I also cover the civil penalties a local council can impose for breach of the ban on rental discrimination, and explain how rental discrimination differs from the duties not to discriminate under the Equality Act.

For practical guidance on operating under the Renters’ Rights Act at all stages of a tenancy, my bestselling book, The Good Landlord Handbook*, is the most comprehensive book available.

Last updated: 7 September 2026

What is rental discrimination?

Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Renters’ Rights Act prohibits “rental discrimination”, so that landlords and letting agents do not prevent applicants from doing any of the following, on the basis that they have a child who would live or visit there and/or they are a benefits claimant:

• enquiring about renting a property
• viewing the property or
• entering into a tenancy agreement.

Rental discrimination can be direct or overt, for instance adverts saying “No DSS”. It can also be indirect, such as requiring applicants to be in full-time employment or “professional”.

Landlords cannot disregard income from benefits when calculating affordability, or take into account that they have children, unless there is a good reason such as it would lead to overcrowding. I explain this below.

How the Renters’ Rights Act bans rental discrimination

The Renters’ Rights Act states that “relevant persons” must not discriminate against applicants on the basis that they receive benefits or have children.

What is a “relevant person” for the rental discrimination ban?

The ban on rental discrimination applies not only to the landlord, but anyone directly or indirectly acting on their behalf, such as a letting agent.

This is because the rental discrimination ban applies to “relevant persons”, which Section 42 of the Renters’ Rights Act defines as:

• the prospective landlord

• a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord.

Discrimination against tenants with children (“no kids”)

Section 33 of the Renters’ Rights Act states that a relevant person must not stop an applicant from doing any of the following, on the basis that a child would or may live with or visit them if they rent the property:

• enquiring whether the property is available for let
• accessing information about the property
• viewing the property in order to consider whether to make an offer to rent it
• entering into a tenancy for the property

In less legalistic terms, this means landlords and agents cannot discourage or prevent someone from renting a property because they have a child under 18 who would either live with them or visit them there.

It also includes indirect discrimination, defined as applying “a provision, criterion or practice” that would make applicants with children who would live there or visit regularly, “less likely to enter into a tenancy” than those who do not. For instance, increasing the income requirements where an applicant has children.

However, a landlord can turn down an application on the grounds that the property is unsuitable for children, provided it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, such as to avoid overcrowding or potential safeguarding issues such as an HMO where the child would share space with unrelated adults.

Discrimination against tenants on benefits (“no DSS”)

Section 34 of the Renters’ Rights Act mirrors the wording in Section 33, and prevents a landlord or an agent from doing the following, on the basis that the applicant is or may be a benefit claimant:

• enquiring whether the property is available for let
• accessing information about the property
• viewing the property in order to consider whether to make an offer to rent it
• entering into a tenancy for the property

In other words, landlords and agents cannot discourage or prevent someone from renting a property because they receive benefits.

It too includes indirect discrimination, defined as applying “a provision, criterion or practice” that would make benefit claimants “less likely to enter into a tenancy” than those who are not. For instance, requiring applicants to have full-time employment, or disregarding benefit payments when assessing affordability. Another example is only requiring benefit claimants to provide a guarantor, even if they pass affordability and credit checks.

However, a landlord can turn down an application on the grounds that the applicants cannot afford the rent. Section 41 states that the rental discrimination rules do not prohibit “taking a person’s income into account when considering whether that person would be able to afford to pay rent under a relevant tenancy”.

The Good Landlord Handbook

Buy from Amazon* Buy from Waterstones*

What landlords can take into account when selecting tenants

Landlords still have the right to select the most suitable tenants, but they cannot turn down applicants on the basis that the applicants receive benefits or have children as that is rental discrimination.

Requiring applicants to meet the following selection criteria does not constitute rental discrimination:

• Proof that the applicants’ income, including any benefits, will be sufficient to cover the rent. A good rule of thumb is insisting that the total income is at least 2.5x the rent.
• Income and rent payments are verified by open banking or bank statements that show that the rent has been paid in full and on time for at least 12 months.
• A reference from the current and the previous landlord to the effect that the rent was paid on time and that they looked after the property.
• A good credit history and no County Court Judgments (CCJs).
• Their identity is verified and they have the right to rent in the UK.

It is also absolutely not prohibited to give preference to applicants with good connections to the area, and who want to put down roots in the community. In fact that probably works as a form of “positive” discrimination in favour of people with children, as they are usually looking for stable, long-term homes.

Also, if someone is rude or unpleasant during the viewing or by email, there is no reason why you can’t turn them down. You can absolutely reject a tenant for behaviour during the application process. That’s not turning them down because they receive benefits or have a family.

>> Related Post: How to Choose Good Tenants

What if insurance products, mortgages and leases ban benefit claimants

The RRA extends the ban on rental discrimination to lease agreements and mortgages by stating that any term in a contract that prohibits landlords from letting to families or tenants on benefits has “no effect” from the Commencement Date, which was 1 May 2026.

There are transitional arrangements for insurance products. For those existing insurance contracts entered into or renewed before 1 May 2026, terms which ban children or benefit claimants will continue to apply until the insurance ends or is renewed, whichever happens sooner.

As insurance contracts typically run for a year, it means that by 30 April 2027 at the latest, no insurance products will be able to require that landlords do not let to tenants with families or who receive benefits.

Can landlords get rent guarantee insurance for benefit claimants?

Yes, provided they pass the affordability criteria, have no adverse credit and no County Court Judgments in their name.

I know this, as I speak from experience, and have successfully secured rent guarantee insurance for applicants who receive benefits who have a good credit history. Incidentally, they have always paid the rent in full and on time.

How does the rental discrimination ban fit with the Equality Act?

The ban on “rental discrimination” under the Renters’ Rights Act is completely separate from and is in addition to the ban on discrimination in the Equality Act 2010.

Whereas rental discrimination focuses on discrimination on the basis that the applicant or tenant has children or receives benefits, the Equality Act bans discrimination on the grounds of certain “protected characteristics”.

Which protected characteristics in the Equality Act apply to residential lettings?

Not all 9 of the characteristics protected under the Equality Act apply to lettings. This is because Section 32 Equality Act states that Part 4 (Premises), which covers letting and managing property, “does not apply to the following protected characteristics: (a) age; (b) marriage and civil partnership.”

So when a landlord or letting agent is choosing between applicants, or managing a tenancy, the Equality Act protects seven characteristics, with links to the relevant provisions in the Equality Act: disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

The Equality Act consequently does not make it unlawful for landlords, letting agents and property managers to take age or marital status into account. The Explanatory Notes to the Equality Act confirm this was deliberate, and that it carried over the position under the earlier discrimination legislation.

However, do take care. A rule about age can still be discrimination on another ground. For instance, a council could treat an age-based refusal as evidence of rental discrimination against families under the Renters’ Rights Act.

Do all 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act apply to short-stay accommodation?

Not quite. Unlike residential lettings, age is a protected characteristic for adults when it comes to short-stay accommodation. This is because holiday lets and similar arrangements “generally for the purpose of short stays by individuals who live elsewhere” fall under Part 3 (Services) rather than Part 4, and Part 3 does protect adults from age discrimination.

However, marriage and civil partnership are excluded from Part 3 as well (Section 28), in line with the approach for residential lettings.

For an assured periodic tenancy, Part 4 applies and discriminating on the basis of age and marriage is not prohibited by the Equality Act.

What does the Equality Act require of landlords and letting agents?

The Equality Act doesn’t require landlords to take positive action for most of the seven characteristics. Instead, it tells them what they must not do, at two stages.

When letting a property, Section 33 of the Equality Act says those letting must not discriminate against someone in the terms on which they offer the letting, by refusing to let it to them, or in the way they treat them compared with other people looking for the property. That covers the advert, the viewing, the shortlist and the decision. It applies to letting agents as much as landlords.

During a tenancy, Section 35 does the same for management. A landlord or agent must not discriminate against a tenant in the way they allow them to use a benefit or facility, by evicting them or taking steps to evict them, or by subjecting them to any other “detriment”. Both sections also prohibit harassment and victimisation, so a tenant who complains about discrimination cannot be treated worse for having complained.

Discrimination here means the same as elsewhere in the Act. Direct discrimination is treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic (Section 13). Indirect discrimination is applying a rule or practice to everyone that puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, unless it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (Section 19).

This is used in the Renters’ Rights Act for the rental discrimination rules.

The extra duties for disability

Disability is different, because the Equality Act does impose positive obligations on landlords and agents.

Section 15 prohibits treating a disabled person unfavourably because of something arising from their disability, unless the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or the landlord did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the disability.

Do landlords have to make reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants?

Yes, within limits. Disability is the one protected characteristic where the Equality Act asks landlords to do something, as opposed to stopping them from doing something.

Section 36 of the Equality Act places a duty to make reasonable adjustments on anyone who lets or manages premises, whether the premises are already let or are being offered to let. It covers a disabled applicant as well as a disabled tenant, and a tenant who becomes disabled. It also extends to the letting agent as well as the landlord. The detail is in Schedule 4.

The duty arises where a provision, criterion or practice of the landlord’s, or the absence of an auxiliary aid, puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled, in relation to their enjoyment of the property or their use of a benefit or facility that comes with the letting. A term of the tenancy agreement counts as a “practice” for this purpose.

Here are four important things to note about the obligation to make reasonable adjustments for tenants:

• It only applies on request. The landlord has to do nothing until the tenant, the applicant, or someone on their behalf asks for a step to be taken. There is no duty to anticipate.
• It does not require a physical feature to be removed or altered. Schedule 4 says this in terms: “It is never reasonable for A to have to take a step which would involve the removal or alteration of a physical feature.” Structural works, ramps and stairlifts fall on the far side of that line.
• “Physical features” are narrowly defined. Furniture, furnishings, materials, equipment and other chattels are excluded, and replacing or providing a sign, a tap, a door handle, a doorbell or a door entry system is expressly not an alteration of a physical feature. Those are the kinds of adjustment a landlord can be asked to make.
• A no-alterations clause may not be enforceable. If a clause in the tenancy agreement stops the tenant from making alterations and that puts them at a disadvantage due to their disability, the landlord has to relax the clause, but only so far as is needed to allow the tenant to make the alteration themselves, at their own cost.

What is “reasonable” is not defined for premises, and there is no statutory code of practice for Part 4. In practice the courts draw on the same factors the EHRC sets out for services in Chapter 7 of its Code of Practice, republished in August 2026: whether the step would actually remove the disadvantage, how practicable it is, what it costs, how disruptive it would be, and the resources of the person being asked.

The civil penalties for rental discrimination

Section 40 of the Renters’ Rights Act entitles the local authority to impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000 on a landlord or letting agent if they are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there has been a breach of the rules regarding rental discrimination in the Renters’ Rights Act (not the Equality Act).

What does a balance of probabilities mean?

A “balance of probabilities” means that councils will need to be satisfied that, based on the evidence provided, a breach is more likely to have occurred than not.

It is a lower standard of proof (ie easier to prove) than the “beyond reasonable doubt” required for most other breaches in the Renters’ Rights Act, for instance the duties which Section 13 of the RRA inserted into a new Section 16E of the Housing Act 1988.

It is the same standard of proof as for rental bidding.

How much will a civil penalty be for rental discrimination

The maximum civil penalty that a local authority can impose for a single breach is £7,000. However, according to the statutory guidance for local authorities, the starting point for both Section 33 (children) and 34 (benefit claimants) is £6,000.

The local authority will then take into account other factors such as:

• Aggravating or mitigating factors, such as the harm caused, “culpability” (eg any previous history of non-compliance, any admission of guilt, and whether and how quickly the non-compliance has been remedied)
• The total penalty for the same circumstances, to ensure it is “just and proportionate”.

>> Related Post: Renters’ Rights Act landlord fines and penalties explained

What if a landlord or letting agent repeats a rental discrimination breach?

Unlike most of the other duties in the Renters’ Rights Act, a repeated breach of the ban on rental discrimination is not an offence, but an additional civil penalty may be imposed by the local authority.

Final thoughts

The new provisions on rental discrimination have not changed how I choose tenants. I’ve always looked at the person: their credit history, whether they’ve always paid the rent on time, whether they have a good reason for living in the area, will they want to stay and put roots down in the community.

Good tenants pay rent in full and on time, look after the property and are good neighbours. Whether or not they receive benefits is neither here nor there. There are plenty of well paid tenants who don’t receive benefits, and don’t have children, who fall into rent arrears.

If you’d like to ask me questions, you can do so at my twice-monthly livestreams in my membership, The Independent Landlord Hub.

>> Related Post: How to select good tenants

* I’m an Amazon Associate, and I earn from qualifying purchases