The Renters' Rights Act Discrimination Ban: Benefits & Children (2026)

The renting discrimination ban under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 makes it unlawful for landlords and letting agents in England to refuse a tenancy, or to treat someone less favourably, simply because the applicant receives benefits or because children will live in or visit the home. In plain terms: “No DSS”, “No benefits” and “No children” policies, whether printed in an advert or applied quietly behind the scenes, are now against the law.

What the ban does not do is stop you running a sensible business. You can still carry out affordability checks and tenant referencing, and you can still choose the applicant who best fits the property, provided you apply the same criteria to everyone and do not treat benefit income as worth less than wages. This guide explains exactly what is prohibited, what remains lawful, how the rules connect to existing Equality Act case law, and how enforcement and penalties work. It is written for England only; the exact penalty levels and some commencement detail are set by secondary regulations, so we flag where you should confirm the current figure on GOV.UK.

What the discrimination ban actually says

The Act’s discrimination provisions sit in a dedicated part of the legislation (broadly sections in the 30s to 50s of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which you can read on legislation.gov.uk). They create two protected situations in the private rented sector in England:

• where a prospective or current tenant receives, or may receive, benefits; and
• where a child (a person under 18) lives with, or will live with or visit, the tenant at the property.

A “relevant person”, meaning the landlord and anyone acting for them, including a professional letting or managing agent and even an informal helper such as a friend or relative, must not do anything that makes a person less likely to enter into a tenancy because of either of those characteristics. The duty bites across the whole letting journey: the advert, the enquiry, the viewing, the offer, the referencing decision and the terms of the agreement itself.

The Government’s own guidance frames it simply: rental discrimination is “the unfair treatment of people in the private rented sector who have children or receive benefits”, and it applies even where a landlord’s assumptions about those tenants are mistaken. You can read the official position in Rental discrimination under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 on GOV.UK.

Exactly what is banned

The ban is deliberately broad because the old “No DSS” problem was rarely as blunt as a sign in a window, it was usually dressed up. The Act therefore catches three layers of conduct.

1. Blanket bans and discriminatory adverts

Any outright “No DSS”, “No benefits”, “No housing benefit”, “No Universal Credit”, “No kids” or “no children” policy is unlawful. That includes the obvious cases, an advert or shop-window card stating the restriction, a property portal filter set to exclude benefit claimants, or a stock phrase in an agent’s enquiry script. If the message is “people on benefits need not apply” or “this property is not suitable for children”, it is banned.

2. Less favourable treatment in practice

You cannot apply a rule to benefit claimants or families that you do not apply to everyone else, or apply it more harshly. Examples that would expose you:

• Telling a benefit claimant the property is “already let” while continuing to show it to working applicants.
• Demanding a guarantor, a larger deposit, or rent paid further in advance only from benefit claimants or families with children.
• Refusing to take a viewing, share information, or progress an application once you learn the applicant receives benefits or has a child.

3. Terms and “practices designed to deter”

The Act also targets the subtle deterrents, what equality lawyers call a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP). A rule that looks neutral but in reality screens out the protected group is caught. Classic examples include:

• Requiring applicants to be in “professional” or “permanent full-time employment”, which by design excludes most benefit claimants.
• A flat minimum-income multiple (for example “income must be 30x the monthly rent”) that ignores benefit income entirely.
• A “no children” or “single professionals only” term written into the tenancy agreement. Such terms are rendered void and unenforceable by the Act, so even if a tenant signs one, it cannot be relied on.

For context on how this fits the wider letting process, see our guides on tenancy deposit protection in England and the overall reform in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 explained.

What landlords can still lawfully do

This is the part that gets lost in the headlines. The ban does not force you to let to someone who genuinely cannot afford the rent, and it does not abolish referencing. What it does is require you to assess everyone on the same, consistent basis.

Affordability checks remain lawful. You can take an applicant’s income into account to decide whether the rent is affordable. The Government guidance is explicit that you are not in breach simply because an applicant fails to meet a genuine, consistently applied income requirement, whether or not they have children or receive benefits. The line is drawn at how you treat the income.

You must value benefit income equally. When you assess affordability, you have to count all of an applicant’s income, including state benefits and pension income, and treat each pound of benefit income as worth the same as a pound of wages. The illustrative example in the guidance is a landlord who excludes or down-weights benefit income in an affordability calculation, that is treated as discrimination, even if the affordability test itself looks neutral. So a “30x annual rent” rule applied to total verified income including benefits can be lawful; the same rule applied to employment income only is not.

Consistent referencing is fine. Credit checks, reference requests, proof-of-income requests and Right to Rent checks all remain part of normal practice. The key safeguards are:

• Use the same criteria and the same documents for every applicant.
• Apply any guarantor or advance-rent requirement on a consistent, evidence-based basis, not selectively against families or claimants.
• Keep a record of how each application was assessed, so you can show your decision turned on affordability or referencing, not on benefits or children.

Right to Rent is separate and unchanged. Your Right to Rent immigration checks are a distinct legal duty and are not affected by the discrimination ban, though you must still carry them out without discriminating on the protected grounds. We cover the mechanics in our tenant referencing and Right to Rent guides.

The limited exceptions

The ban is not absolute, but the carve-outs are narrow and you should not over-rely on them.

• Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Conduct that would otherwise be caught can be lawful if it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, language borrowed directly from equality law. This is a genuine but demanding test: you need a real, legitimate objective and a measure that is no more restrictive than necessary. A vague preference will not satisfy it.
• Insurance and superior leases. There is a limited allowance where you are bound by an existing insurance policy or a superior agreement that genuinely restricts who may occupy. But the Act also moves to void discriminatory terms in insurance and tenancy contracts entered into or renewed from the commencement date, so a policy you renew after the rules begin will not give you cover to discriminate. Treat this exception as shrinking, not growing.

If you think an exception applies, document precisely why and take advice, because the burden of justifying it falls on you.

How this builds on the Equality Act 2010

The discrimination ban did not appear from nowhere. For years, tenants challenged “No DSS” policies as indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, on the basis that benefit claimants are disproportionately women and disabled people (both protected characteristics). County court rulings, most prominently a 2020 case in York, found that blanket “No DSS” letting policies were unlawfully indirectly discriminatory. But that route was slow, case-by-case, and depended on the claimant fitting a protected characteristic.

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 turns that hard-won case law into a direct, standalone prohibition. The deliberate use of the “provision, criterion or practice” concept means the courts and councils can draw on the established Equality Act framework when deciding whether a neutral-looking rule is really a deterrent. In short: the Equality Act protections still exist in the background, but the new ban is clearer, broader and easier to enforce, because a tenant no longer has to prove they belong to a protected group, having children or claiming benefits is enough.

Enforcement and penalties

Enforcement sits with local housing authorities (councils), not the courts in the first instance. A council can investigate and, if it decides on the balance of probabilities that a relevant person has breached the discrimination rules, impose a civil financial penalty.

The headline points:

• Penalties for discrimination breaches are intended to sit in the range used for procedural and unlawful-practice offences, up to around £7,000 per breach, with the precise level and any inflation uplift set by regulations, so confirm the current figure on GOV.UK rather than treating any number as fixed.
• Penalties can be imposed per breach, and repeat breaches within a defined period (reported as five years) can attract further or escalated penalties.
• A relevant person can also be liable as well as, or instead of, the landlord, so agents are directly on the hook for their own conduct.
• Tenants and applicants who experience discrimination can complain to the local authority, and a county court claim for damages may also be possible.

Because both the exact penalty amounts and parts of the commencement detail are delivered through secondary regulations, do not state a hard figure to a tenant or in a policy document without checking the current position on GOV.UK first. For the wider enforcement landscape, see the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 explained and our commencement timeline guide at Renters’ Rights Act 2025 commencement dates.

Practical compliance: adverts and referencing

You can make yourself low-risk with a few concrete changes.

Audit your adverts and listings. Remove every “No DSS”, “No benefits”, “No housing benefit”, “Working professionals only” and “No children” phrase from listings, portal filters, window cards, enquiry templates and auto-responses. Check that any portal pre-set filters are not silently excluding benefit claimants.

Rewrite affordability rules to include all income. State your affordability criterion in income-neutral terms and apply it to total verified income, including benefits and pension. Avoid “must be employed” wording entirely.

Standardise the process. Use one referencing checklist, one document list and one decision template for every applicant. If you require a guarantor or rent in advance in some cases, define the objective trigger (for example, a failed credit reference applied to everyone) so it is not aimed at families or claimants.

Keep evidence. Note the reason each application succeeded or failed, tied to affordability, referencing or Right to Rent, never to benefits or children. A clear audit trail is your best defence if a council asks questions.

Brief your agent. If a letting agent acts for you, confirm in writing that they apply the same compliant process, because their breach can still cost you, and them.

Frequently asked questions

Can I still refuse a tenant who cannot afford the rent?

Yes. The discrimination ban does not require you to let to someone who genuinely fails a fair affordability test. You can decline an applicant on affordability or referencing grounds, provided you apply the same criteria to everyone and you count their benefit income at full value alongside any other income. The breach arises only if the real reason for refusal is the benefits or the children, or if your test is built to screen them out.

Is “No DSS” actually illegal now, or just frowned upon?

It is unlawful in England. A blanket “No DSS”, “No benefits” or “No children” policy, whether in an advert, a portal filter or an unwritten practice, breaches the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and can lead a council to impose a civil financial penalty. This goes further than the previous position, where tenants had to bring an indirect-discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010.

Does the ban apply to letting agents as well as landlords?

Yes. The rules apply to any “relevant person”, which expressly includes letting and managing agents acting for the landlord, and even informal helpers. An agent can be penalised in their own right for a discriminatory advert, viewing decision or referencing practice, so landlords should confirm in writing that their agent follows a compliant process.

Can I ask whether an applicant receives benefits?

Asking about income, including benefits, as part of a consistent affordability assessment is not itself unlawful, because you need to verify total income. What you cannot do is use the answer to treat the applicant less favourably, exclude them, or value their benefit income at less than wages. If you ask, ask everyone, and assess everyone the same way.

How much is the fine for rental discrimination?

Discrimination breaches are enforced by local councils through civil financial penalties, reported to be up to around £7,000 per breach, with repeat breaches capable of attracting further penalties. The exact amounts and any inflation adjustments are set by secondary regulations, so confirm the current figure on GOV.UK before relying on a specific number.

What about the proportionate-means exception, can I use it?

Only in narrow, well-evidenced cases. Conduct can be lawful if it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, but this is a demanding test: you must show a genuine legitimate objective and that your approach is no more restrictive than necessary. A general preference for “easier” tenants will not qualify, and the burden of justifying the exception is on you. If in doubt, take advice and document your reasoning.