Overview
'No DSS' policies are unlawful
A blanket policy refusing tenants who receive housing benefit or Universal Credit (commonly called 'no DSS') is unlawful indirect sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, because women are disproportionately represented among benefit claimants. Courts have confirmed this position since 2020.
Protected characteristics, the nine grounds
- Age: Cannot refuse to let solely because of the applicant's age (young adult or older person), though age-appropriate properties (e.g. retirement housing) are a legitimate exception
- Disability: Cannot refuse solely because of disability. Must make 'reasonable adjustments' to policies and procedures to avoid putting disabled applicants at a substantial disadvantage
- Gender reassignment: Cannot discriminate against trans applicants
- Marriage and civil partnership: Limited protection, relevant mainly in employment, less so in housing
- Pregnancy and maternity: Cannot refuse because an applicant is pregnant or on maternity leave
- Race: Cannot refuse on grounds of race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin
- Religion or belief: Cannot refuse because of religious affiliation or beliefs
- Sex: Cannot refuse solely because of the applicant's sex
- Sexual orientation: Cannot refuse because of sexual orientation
Direct and indirect discrimination
- Direct discrimination: Treating an applicant less favourably because of a protected characteristic, e.g. 'we don't rent to Eastern Europeans' is direct race discrimination
- Indirect discrimination: Applying a condition that appears neutral but disproportionately disadvantages a group with a protected characteristic, e.g. 'no benefits' disproportionately affects women, so it is indirect sex discrimination
- Indirect discrimination can be justified if the condition is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', landlords cannot justify a blanket no-benefits policy purely on financial risk grounds when individual assessment is possible
- Harassment: Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates dignity or creates an intimidating environment is unlawful, e.g. making discriminatory comments during a viewing
- Enforcement: tenants can bring claims to the county court within 6 years of the discriminatory act. Compensation can include general damages for injury to feelings
The 'no DSS' ban, what landlords can and cannot do
- You cannot operate a blanket 'no DSS', 'no housing benefit', or 'no Universal Credit' policy, this is unlawful indirect sex discrimination (and may also be disability discrimination, as disabled people are disproportionately represented among benefit claimants)
- You can assess benefit applicants on the same affordability criteria as employed applicants, if the benefit income is sufficient to cover the rent, you can let to that tenant
- Universal Credit direct payment: where a UC tenant's rent is paid directly to the landlord via 'alternative payment arrangements', this provides payment security comparable to a standing order. Ask the DWP about managed payments for vulnerable tenants or significant arrears
- Guarantors: you can require a guarantor where the tenant does not meet affordability criteria, but you must apply this requirement consistently across all tenant types, not just benefit claimants
- Remove 'no DSS' or 'no benefits' wording from all adverts, portals, agent instructions, and internal referencing criteria, this language is unlawful regardless of whether it reflects your actual practice
Disability, reasonable adjustments
- Landlords are 'service providers' under the Equality Act, they have an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants and tenants
- Reasonable adjustments to policies: e.g. allowing a guide dog in a 'no pets' property; accepting an adapted rent payment method for a tenant with cognitive difficulties
- Reasonable adjustments to the physical property: the duty to make physical alterations to the property for disabled tenants is limited for landlords, but allowing a tenant to make adaptations at their own expense (e.g. installing a stairlift or grab rails) is generally a reasonable adjustment
- The 'reasonable' test: whether an adjustment is reasonable depends on its cost, practicality, and the resources available, a large corporate landlord may be expected to make more expensive adjustments than a small private landlord
- Failure to make a reasonable adjustment is unlawful, a disabled tenant who is refused a reasonable accommodation can bring a county court discrimination claim