Most landlords are not intentionally discriminatory. But well-intentioned landlords can inadvertently run foul of the Equality Act through blanket policies ('no benefits', 'professional tenants only', 'families with children considered'), advertising language, or inconsistent application of referencing criteria. Understanding the Act's requirements allows landlords to select tenants on legitimate financial and tenancy risk criteria — without creating legal exposure.
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 does not change the Equality Act position directly — but the transition to Periodic Assured Tenancies and the abolition of Section 21 means that landlords can no longer use a no-fault eviction to resolve a difficult tenancy that arose from a discriminatory selection process. Getting selection right from the outset is more important than ever.
The nine protected characteristics
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination based on any of these characteristics:
- Age: Cannot refuse to let solely because of age. You can legitimately require a minimum age of 18 (capacity to enter contracts). Retirement-only housing is a legitimate exception
- Disability: Cannot refuse solely because of disability. Must consider reasonable adjustments to policies (e.g. allowing a guide dog). Broad definition includes mental health conditions, learning difficulties, long-term illness
- Gender reassignment: Cannot discriminate against trans applicants — including refusing to accept a tenancy from a person undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment
- Marriage and civil partnership: Cannot refuse to let solely because applicants are or are not married or in a civil partnership
- Pregnancy and maternity: Cannot refuse because an applicant is pregnant, on maternity leave, or has recently given birth
- Race: Cannot discriminate on grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin — the most frequently litigated protected characteristic in housing
- Religion or belief: Cannot refuse because of religious affiliation — including refusing to let to Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, or any other belief group
- Sex: Cannot refuse solely because of sex — most commonly arises in the 'no DSS' context (benefit claimants are disproportionately female)
- Sexual orientation: Cannot refuse because an applicant is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual
Direct and indirect discrimination — the key distinction
Understanding the distinction allows landlords to assess their policies correctly:
- Direct discrimination: Treating an applicant less favourably because of a protected characteristic — 'we don't rent to Eastern Europeans' is direct race discrimination. There is no justification defence for direct discrimination
- Indirect discrimination: Applying a condition or practice that appears neutral but disproportionately disadvantages a group sharing a protected characteristic — 'no benefits' disadvantages women (who disproportionately receive housing benefit), so it is indirect sex discrimination
- Indirect discrimination can be justified if the practice is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' — financial risk management is a legitimate aim, but a blanket 'no benefits' policy is not proportionate because individual affordability assessment achieves the same aim without blanket exclusion
- Harassment: Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates dignity or creates an intimidating environment — discriminatory comments during viewings or in written communications
- Victimisation: Treating someone less favourably because they have raised a discrimination complaint or assisted someone else who has
The 'no DSS' ban — what you must change
No DSS policies are unlawful — what this means in practice:
- Remove all 'no DSS', 'no housing benefit', 'no Universal Credit', or 'professionals only' exclusions from adverts, portal listings, agent instructions, and internal referencing criteria
- Assess benefit applicants on the same affordability criteria as employed applicants — if the combined benefit income (UC housing cost element + other income) is sufficient to cover the rent (at the 33–40% income-to-rent ratio), they meet your affordability criteria
- Universal Credit direct payments: for UC tenants, you can request that the housing cost element is paid directly to you rather than to the tenant via 'alternative payment arrangements' (APA). Contact DWP or ask the tenant to request this arrangement
- Guarantors: requiring a guarantor where a tenant does not meet affordability criteria is lawful — provided you apply this requirement consistently to all tenant types, not specifically to benefit claimants
- You cannot impose more onerous conditions on benefit claimants than on employed tenants with similar income levels — e.g. requiring 6 months' rent upfront from a UC tenant but only 1 month from an employed tenant with comparable income
Disability — reasonable adjustments
Landlords have specific obligations to accommodate disabled tenants and applicants:
- The Equality Act requires landlords to make 'reasonable adjustments' to policies, practices, and procedures to avoid putting disabled people at a substantial disadvantage
- Allowing a guide dog in a 'no pets' property: this is a standard reasonable adjustment — a blanket 'no pets' policy must yield to a disabled person's need for an assistance dog
- Rent payment methods: if a disabled tenant has difficulty with standard payment methods, accepting an alternative (bank transfer, standing order, DWP payment) is a reasonable adjustment to your payment policy
- Physical adaptations: landlords are not required to physically alter the property for disabled tenants, but must not unreasonably refuse permission for a disabled tenant to make adaptations at the tenant's own expense (e.g. installing a stairlift, adding grab rails, installing a video doorbell for a tenant with hearing impairment)
- The 'reasonable' test: what is reasonable depends on the cost of the adjustment, the landlord's resources, and the disruption involved. What is reasonable for a large corporate landlord may not be for an individual with one property
Running a lawful tenant selection process
Apply consistent, objective criteria to all applicants to reduce discrimination risk:
- Use the same referencing criteria for all applicants: affordability (income-to-rent ratio), credit check, employment/income verification, and previous landlord reference — applied consistently regardless of the applicant's background
- Document your decisions: for every application you decline, note the objective reason (failed affordability, adverse credit, adverse landlord reference). If you cannot articulate an objective reason, that is a warning sign
- Train your letting agent: agents act on your instructions and their discriminatory actions can create your liability. Ensure your agent's advertising and selection criteria comply with the Equality Act
- When in doubt, seek advice: if you are uncertain whether a specific decision or policy could be discriminatory, seek advice from a solicitor or the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before acting
- Enforcement: tenants can bring county court discrimination claims within 6 years of the act. Compensation can include: actual financial loss, injury to feelings (typically £1,000–£25,000+ depending on severity), and aggravated damages for wilful discrimination
Frequently asked questions
Can I refuse a tenant because my lender's mortgage conditions prohibit DSS tenants?+
No — this argument has been specifically considered and rejected by courts. In the leading 2020 case (Shelter/DSS discrimination cases), landlords argued that their lender's mortgage conditions prohibited benefit tenants. The court found that the landlord remained liable for the discrimination even if they were acting under a lender's condition, because the landlord had chosen to accept those mortgage terms. The lender's condition does not provide a defence. If your mortgage prohibits DSS tenants, you should take this up with your lender — the condition itself may be challengeable as facilitating unlawful discrimination.
Can I require all tenants to pass a credit check, even if they have a clean payment history?+
Yes — a credit check applied consistently to all applicants is a lawful referencing step. Adverse credit history (CCJs, IVAs, prior insolvency) is a legitimate financial risk factor that can justify declining an application. However, the same criteria must apply to all applicants — applying more stringent credit requirements to benefit claimants or to applicants from particular nationalities would be discriminatory.
I have had bad experiences with certain types of tenants — can I use this to inform my selection?+
Not if 'certain types' means a protected characteristic group. Bad past experiences with tenants of a particular race, nationality, religion, or other protected characteristic cannot justify discriminatory selection — that is exactly what the Equality Act prohibits. You can inform your selection by improving your referencing process (stronger income verification, more thorough landlord references) — but you cannot use protected characteristic proxies as risk indicators.
What is the process if a tenant brings an equality complaint?+
A tenant who believes they have been discriminated against can: (1) raise an informal complaint with the landlord or agent; (2) contact the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS); (3) bring a county court claim. If a claim is issued, you will receive a county court claim form. Seek legal advice immediately — do not ignore county court proceedings. Defences include: proving there was no less favourable treatment, proving the reason was not the protected characteristic, or (for indirect discrimination) demonstrating objective justification.