No DSS and No Children Bans Are Illegal: Tenant Discrimination Rules 2026

The Renters' Rights Act 2025 makes it explicitly illegal for landlords and letting agents to impose blanket bans on tenants who receive housing benefits or families with children. From 1 May 2026, any landlord who refuses to consider an applicant solely because they receive Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, or any other welfare payment — or because they have children — faces civil penalties of up to £7,000 for a first offence and £40,000 for repeated breaches.

This is not entirely new territory. Courts have already found "No DSS" policies to be indirectly discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010, and the landmark cases of Haque v Caven (2020) and Kaler v Awan established that blanket exclusions disproportionately affect women and disabled people. What the Renters' Rights Act does is move the prohibition from case law into statute, removing any ambiguity and giving local authorities direct enforcement powers. Latch helps landlords run consistent, documented tenant screening processes that assess every applicant fairly on affordability and suitability.

This guide explains what the new rules require, what landlords can still lawfully do when selecting tenants, the legitimate exceptions that exist, and how to build a compliant screening process that protects both your investment and your legal standing.

What the New Rules Say

The Renters' Rights Act inserts new provisions that make it a specific offence for any person involved in the letting of residential property to refuse to let, or to impose conditions on the letting, because a prospective tenant is in receipt of benefits or has children. The prohibition covers the entire letting process: advertising, viewings, applications, and the offer stage.

Crucially, the Act goes beyond direct discrimination. It also prohibits indirect discrimination — practices that appear neutral on the surface but disproportionately disadvantage people with protected characteristics. A blanket income-multiple requirement that excludes most benefit recipients, for example, could constitute indirect discrimination if it cannot be objectively justified.

Why Bans Were Already Problematic

The Renters' Rights Act codifies what courts had already begun to establish. Two landmark cases in 2020 demonstrated that "No DSS" policies constituted indirect sex discrimination and indirect disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, because women and disabled people are disproportionately represented among benefit recipients.

In Haque v Caven (2020), a letting agent refused to let a property to a single mother on Housing Benefit. The county court found this constituted indirect sex discrimination, as a significantly higher proportion of Housing Benefit recipients are women. The agent was ordered to pay compensation. In a similar case involving a disabled applicant, the court found indirect disability discrimination on the same basis — disabled people are overrepresented among benefit claimants.

Following these rulings, the major property portals — Rightmove, Zoopla, and OnTheMarket — removed the ability to filter by "No DSS" or similar criteria. Most letting agent trade bodies issued guidance to members prohibiting blanket exclusions. The Renters' Rights Act now puts this beyond any doubt by creating a standalone statutory offence with financial penalties.

What You CAN Still Do

The ban on discrimination does not mean landlords must accept every applicant. You retain full discretion to select tenants based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria. The key is that every applicant must be assessed using the same process, and rejections must be based on individual circumstances rather than blanket policies.

• Affordability assessment: You can require that a tenant's total income (including benefits) is sufficient to cover the rent. A common benchmark is that rent should not exceed 40-45% of gross income. Apply this consistently to all applicants.
• Credit checks: Run credit checks on all applicants. A poor credit history is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to decline — provided you apply the same standard to everyone.
• Landlord references: Request references from previous landlords. A history of rent arrears, property damage, or anti-social behaviour is a valid reason to decline.
• Employment verification: You can verify employment status and income. However, requiring employment as a condition (rather than assessing total income including benefits) may constitute indirect discrimination.
• Guarantors: You can request a guarantor if the applicant's income or credit history does not meet your standard criteria. This must be offered as an option to all applicants who fall short, not only those on benefits.
• Right to Rent checks: You are legally required to verify every applicant's right to rent in the UK. This is a non-discriminatory legal obligation.
• Rent in advance: Under the Renters' Rights Act, you can request up to one month's rent in advance. The Tenant Fees Act 2019 prohibits requiring more than this.

Legitimate Exceptions

There are limited circumstances where refusing a family with children or a benefit recipient may be lawful. These are narrow exceptions and must be based on objective, documented grounds — not used as a backdoor for blanket policies.

Compliant Advertising: Do and Don't

Your property listing is often the first thing a prospective tenant sees — and the first place enforcement officers look for evidence of discrimination. The following table shows common advertising phrases and whether they comply with the new rules.

Review all your current property listings — on portals, your own website, and any social media — and remove any language that could be interpreted as discriminatory. If in doubt, keep it simple: state the rent, the property features, and that full referencing is required.

Penalties for Discrimination

The Renters' Rights Act creates a dual enforcement mechanism. Local authority trading standards can issue civil penalties, and tenants can bring claims directly through the courts under the Equality Act 2010.

The financial exposure is significant. A landlord who imposes a blanket "No DSS" policy could face a £7,000 local authority fine and a separate Equality Act compensation claim from a rejected applicant. With injury-to-feelings awards regularly exceeding £5,000 in discrimination cases, the total cost of a single discriminatory decision can easily exceed £12,000.

Building a Fair Screening Process

The best defence against a discrimination claim is a consistent, documented screening process that treats every applicant identically. The following checklist provides a framework for compliant tenant selection.

• Use a standardised application form that collects the same information from every applicant — income (all sources), employment status, rental history, and consent for referencing
• Run credit checks through a recognised provider for every applicant who passes the initial affordability threshold
• Request references from the current or most recent landlord for every applicant, covering payment history and property condition
• Apply the same affordability criteria to all applicants — if your threshold is rent below 40% of gross income, apply it equally whether income comes from employment, benefits, pension, or a combination
• Offer the guarantor option to any applicant whose income or credit does not meet your standard criteria, regardless of their income source
• Document your reasons for accepting or rejecting each applicant in writing, referencing specific criteria rather than general impressions
• Keep all application records, references, and decision notes for at least 12 months after the letting decision
• Train any staff or agents involved in the letting process on the new discrimination rules

Using property management software with built-in screening workflows automates much of this process. Latch provides standardised application forms, tracks referencing progress, and stores decision records — creating the audit trail you need to demonstrate fair treatment.

For guidance on compliant tenant notice procedures, see our tenant notice and periodic tenancy guide.

Impact on the Rental Market

The ban on discrimination will meaningfully expand the pool of available tenants for landlords. Approximately 1.1 million private rented sector households in England include someone who receives housing-related benefits. Many of these tenants have been shut out of large portions of the market by blanket exclusions, creating artificial supply shortages in the properties that do accept them.

For landlords, broader access to the tenant pool means faster lettings and fewer void periods. A property that might sit empty for weeks when restricted to "working professionals" could be let within days when all qualified applicants are considered. Benefit recipients who receive Local Housing Allowance directly to the landlord (via alternative payment arrangements) can also provide more predictable income than tenants relying solely on irregular employment income.

The long-term effect should be a more efficient rental market where properties are matched to tenants based on genuine suitability rather than crude exclusionary criteria.

Frequently Asked Questions