Guidance

Rental discrimination under the Renters' Rights Act 2025

Published 13 November 2025

Applies to England

What is rental discrimination? 

For the purpose of this guidance, rental discrimination is the unfair treatment of people in the private rented sector who have children or receive benefits. Decisions based on something believed to be true, such as that a tenant has children or receives benefits, are still discrimination, even if the belief is false. 

References to landlords in this guidance include anybody acting on their behalf, such as a letting agent, referencing service or family member.

Who this guide is for  

This guide is designed to help local authorities in England understand the new rental discrimination measures in chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the act).  

There is separate guidance for landlords.

This guide does not cover wider discrimination relating to the Equality Act 2010, for which separate guidance is available, although some breaches of these requirements may also be a violation of that act. Complaints of direct and indirect discrimination based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation should be referred to the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).

When the measures start 

The new measures apply to all assured and regulated tenancies on and from 1 May 2026. It does not matter if they were agreed before or after this date. 

All discriminatory terms in superior leases (such as between a landlord and their freeholder, or where a rent-to-rent arrangement is in place) and mortgage agreements are cancelled on and from 1 May 2026. This means they can no longer be used to justify discrimination against a tenant with children or receiving benefits. It does not matter if they were agreed before or after this date.  

Discriminatory terms in insurance contracts are cancelled where they are agreed or renewed on and from 1 May 2026. This means they can no longer be used to justify discrimination against a tenant with children or receiving benefits.

Who the measures apply to 

These measures apply to all landlords or agents in England who let out properties on assured and regulated tenancies. This includes tenancies offered by or on behalf of the Crown Estate, but not the Parliamentary Estate, nor those of social or supported housing. 

Landlords or anybody acting on their behalf may be found liable for a breach of these measures, whether formally contracted or just a family member acting informally.  

A person or firm cannot be liable for discrimination if they only carry out one or more of the following, and nothing else:  

• publishing adverts or disseminating information 

• providing a means for landlords to communicate directly with prospective tenants 

• providing a means for prospective tenants to communicate directly with landlords 

This means that websites which host property adverts only are not caught by the rental discrimination restrictions. Additional exempted conduct may be defined at a later date.

Which renters are protected 

The rental discrimination measures prevent landlords and agents acting on their behalf from providing unfair treatment to renters, both sitting or prospective, based on their having children or receiving benefits.

Children 

Children means anyone under 18 years old who would either visit or live at the property.  

Discrimination may also take more specific forms, such as by targeting: 

• children of certain ages or characteristics 
• other specific subsets of children such as those in fostering arrangements

Benefits 

Benefits includes (but is not limited to) any of the following benefits: 

• Universal Credit 
• Jobseeker’s Allowance 
• Personal Independence Payment  
• Employment and Support Allowance  
• Income Support  
• Legacy Housing Benefit 
• State Pension or Pension Credit 
• Council Tax Support  
• Tax Credits (Child and Working)  
• Child Benefit  
• Guardian’s Allowance
• Carer’s Allowance 

The full definition of a benefits claimant, as found in the act, is any person who receives payments by virtue of (including regulations made under): 

• the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
• the Welfare Reform Act 2012
• the Jobseekers Act 1995
• the State Pension Credit Act 2002
• the Tax Credits Act 2002
• the Welfare Reform Act 2007
• the Pensions Act 2014 
• a council tax reduction scheme under 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992

What is considered unlawful discrimination 

Landlords and anyone acting on their behalf must not take steps that intend to make a person less likely to enter a tenancy agreement because they have children or receive benefits. This includes (but is not limited to) stopping them: 

• accessing information about a property, including its availability 
• viewing a property 
• signing a tenancy agreement

The only exceptions are: 

• If that property is subject to an existing insurance contract signed before 1 May 2026 which contains a term that prevents occupation by children or benefit claimants. This exception ends when the insurance is renewed or ends. 

• If stopping children from living in the property would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (PMLA), such as if it would genuinely be unsuitable or cause overcrowding.

Discriminatory terms in tenancies

Any terms in an assured or regulated tenancy, or in the superior lease of a property that is let under an assured or regulated tenancy, that stop tenants from claiming benefits or having children at the property are no longer valid and cannot be used to justify discrimination, unless one of the exceptions applies. 

Discriminatory terms in mortgages 

Any terms in the mortgage of a property let under an assured or regulated tenancy that stop tenants claiming benefits or having children at the property will no longer have any effect and so cannot be used to justify discrimination. 

Discriminatory terms in insurance 

Any terms in an existing insurance contract of a property let under an assured or regulated tenancy that stop tenants from claiming benefits or having children at the property only has effect until the insurance ends or is renewed, whichever happens sooner. 

For insurance contracts that are renewed or start after 1 May 2026, clauses which exclude children or benefit claimants are of no effect so cannot be used to justify discrimination.

What is not considered unlawful discrimination 

Consideration of income 

Landlords can take a tenant’s income into account when considering if the rent is affordable. They are not liable for a breach if a set income requirement is not met, regardless of whether the person has children or receives benefits. 

If the prospective tenant complains to their local authority about a refusal to offer a tenancy because the use of an income test was discriminatory, the local authority should consider if: 

• the prospective tenant has demonstrated that they could meet the set income requirement 

• the landlord has accounted for all forms of income, including state benefits and pension, and treated them of equal value 

• the requirement has been raised because the person has children or receives benefits 

When deciding between multiple prospective tenants who have met the income requirements, landlords should not consider whether they receive benefits or have children in reaching their decision. 

Landlords should set the same income requirement for all prospective tenants and treat all forms of income equally. It is up to the prospective tenant to demonstrate they meet this requirement, but landlords should take all forms of income into account. Landlords should not unreasonably refuse to accept a means of evidencing income that a tenant provides, whether a bank statement, proof of benefit letter, pay slip or otherwise. 

Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (PMLA) 

In certain cases, landlords may stop children from living in a property if they can demonstrate that the restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There is no such exception made for discrimination against benefits claimants. 

Determining if a ‘no children’ restriction is a PMLA is up to the relevant local authority for the purposes of imposing a penalty. This decision may be reviewed by the tribunal if a penalty is subsequently appealed. Some examples are included in annexes A and B. Local authorities should evaluate: 

• if the intended aim is legitimate 

• if restricting occupation by children would achieve that aim 

• if the restriction is proportionate

Deciding if an aim is legitimate  

Landlords can restrict children living in their properties if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. To be considered sufficiently legitimate, the limit has to be genuine and not in itself aim to discriminate against families with children. 

Common examples will include retirement homes and student housing. Another example could be that a property would be unsafe for children. This could be for various reasons, including the construction of the property posing dangers for younger children that cannot be readily mitigated, or safeguarding concerns over shared facilities or common parts in the building. There might also be other statutory requirements the landlord has to meet, like house in multiple occupation (HMO) licensing conditions or overcrowding regulations.  

When deciding if an aim is legitimate, local authorities should consider if:  

• the aim appears to provide some form of genuine benefit 

• the aim does not appear itself to be intended to discriminate against families with children

For a restriction to be legitimate, someone other than the landlord must benefit. For example, providing peaceful retirement living, proximity to a university, or the safety of a child. A financial aim alone, such as to lower business costs, is not legitimate, neither is where the purpose itself is to negatively discriminate. 

Deciding if the restriction is proportionate 

After deciding that the aim of a restriction is legitimate, local authorities must decide if it is a proportionate way of achieving it.  

When deciding if an aim is proportionate, local authorities should consider if:  

• there are ways the restriction could be limited 

• there are other ways of achieving the aim

For a restriction to be proportionate, landlords should have considered if there are other ways of achieving the same goal. If there are no reasonable alternatives, the restriction should be suitably limited. For example, whether they ban all children from living at the property or those of certain ages.

Enforcement 

A local authority can issue a civil penalty against the prospective landlord or anyone acting on their behalf if they are satisfied that the breach was either: 

• committed with their consent or knowledge 
• due to their neglect 

A local authority may decide to impose a single penalty on more than one person for the same breach or offence. Where they do so, those people are jointly and severally liable to pay it. 

More information about enforcement powers and the procedures for issuing financial penalties can be found in the civil penalty notices guidance. 

First breach 

Local authorities may issue a civil penalty of up to £7,000 if they find someone liable for discrimination. 

Continuous breaches 

A continuous breach is when discriminatory conduct continues to take place more than 28 days after a final notice or appeal decision has been issued. 

When a continuous breach occurs, local authorities can issue a further civil penalty of up to £7,000.  

Repeat breaches 

A repeated breach is when discriminatory conduct occurs under the same section of the act again within 5 years of a previous final notice or appeal decision being issued.  

When a repeat breach occurs, local authorities can issue a civil penalty of up to £7,000 in addition to £7,000 for the breach itself.  

Financial penalty example 

A landlord who is found liable for rental discrimination may be fined up to £7,000 by their local authority. 

Every 28 days after, if the discriminatory conduct has not stopped and is continuous, they may be charged an additional £7,000.

If they breach the same section of rental discrimination provisions in a different case within 5 years, this is known as a repeated breach. A landlord may be charged up to £7,000 for this breach itself as well as an additional £7,000.

Balance of probabilities 

Rental discrimination is a civil matter, so local authorities must decide on the balance of probabilities whether a breach has taken place. This simply means that they are satisfied that discrimination is more likely to have occurred than not. 

As local authorities are exercising a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, they must be satisfied that credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence exists to determine a breach to the required standard.

Gathering evidence 

Local authorities will need to decide what sort of evidence to gather to support or reject a case, although how best to do so may be determined locally. Local authorities should compile any evidence provided by the alleged victim and draw up and confirm a witness statement. Once a case of discrimination takes shape, this should be put to the landlord or agent who can offer evidence in their defence. 

Local authorities have powers to request information and enter business premises to support their investigations. More information about investigatory powers and how to use them can be found in the investigatory powers guidance. 

When reporting discrimination, tenants should provide:  

• timestamped copies of communications with the landlord or property agent, such as text messages, voicemails or emails 

• copies of, or links to, discriminatory adverts or property listings, dated where possible 

Evidence that the tenant receives benefits or has children is not necessary. This is because discrimination is still deemed to have taken place even if on a false belief that a tenant has children or receives benefits.  

When defending themselves, landlords and anyone acting on their behalf should provide all relevant documentation which supports the validity of their decision or actions. This may include: 

• time-stamped copies of communications with the prospective tenant, such as text messages, voicemails, or emails, or copies of adverts or property listings, dated where possible 

• legal documents such as the property deed, statement of licensing conditions or an insurance contract 

• informal documents such as a brochure clearly designating the property as part of a retirement or student accommodation facility 

Landlords are not entitled to claim any related costs, such as for obtaining a deed from the Land Registry. 

Other routes tenants may take 

Tenants can contact a letting agent redress scheme or enter into civil proceedings themselves. Local authorities should share any of their own evidence or findings in support of these proceedings where appropriate. 

In addition to the civil penalties local authorities can impose, redress schemes and the courts have powers to direct landlords to make things right. This may include an apology or financial compensation.

Annex A: Illustrative examples that are not breaches 

A landlord operating a small development of homes for retirees stipulates that children are not allowed to live on the site but may visit. A prospective tenant who is the guardian of her grandchildren is refused a tenancy and reports this to the local authority. 

After speaking to the landlord, the local authority decides no breach of rental discrimination measures has taken place. The nature of the development is clearly advertised, and the restriction is in place to provide a genuine benefit to the residents. 

A landlord letting out studios to students close to a university does not allow tenants with children to occupy the premises. Although self-contained, the studios have shared lounge and laundry facilities, and the landlord does not think it safe for children to be using these same common parts with strangers. A mature student with children is refused a tenancy and reports this to the local authority. 

The local authority decides the restriction is acceptable and that no discrimination has taken place. As the common parts are shared with other students, they are likely to see a lot of traffic from strangers at all hours of the day and are not safe for unsupervised children. 

A landlord is seeking to let a property which used to be supported accommodation. They claim it is still bound by a restrictive covenant on the title deed limiting its use to housing for elderly people. A family with children is rejected on this basis and complains to their local authority. As the landlord does not produce a copy of the title deed when requested, the local authority deems that on the balance of probabilities discrimination has taken place and issues a civil penalty. 

The landlord appeals to the first-tier tribunal and has been able to secure a copy of the title deed from the Land Registry which shows the restrictive covenant. The tribunal overturns the financial penalty imposed on the landlord by the local authority and rules that the restriction was legitimate. 

A landlord seeking to let a large room in a HMO with shared cooking facilities rejects an applicant due to them having a child, which would contravene the licensing conditions. The tenant reports this to the local authority, claiming that there is plenty of space in the large room to accommodate a small cot. 

The local authority upholds the landlord’s decision. They highlight the occupancy conditions of their HMO licence, which in this case require that any children in an HMO have access to a separate kitchen. 

Annex B: Illustrative examples that are breaches 

A landlord who does not want to let their property to a benefit claimant submits a referencing request to a third party which ignores benefit income for affordability assessments. The referencing company rejects the prospective tenant because they do not meet the affordability requirement. The tenant reports this to the local authority as discrimination. 

While there is nothing stopping the landlord from refusing a tenant if they cannot afford the rent, their benefits were treated unequally in the income calculations and so the local authority finds that discrimination did take place. 

A landlord seeking to let a house rejects an applicant due to their receiving the housing element of Universal Credit. They explain that, under the terms of the mortgage, they are not allowed to let to somebody who receives any housing support payments. The tenant reports this to the local authority as discrimination. 

The local authority agrees that discrimination has taken place. Under the rental discrimination measures, any terms of a mortgage that would prohibit or restrict the occupation of a property by benefits claimants are rendered of no effect. 

A landlord letting out a listed property rejects a family with one 16-year-old child as they do not allow children in the property due to the dangers of the spiral staircase in a hallway which cannot be reasonably remedied, for example, there is nowhere to support a stairgate. The family report this to the local authority as discrimination, noting that their 16-year-old child is more than capable of using it. 

The local authority does not think an outright ban on all children living in the property is proportionate and agrees that the concerns around the family’s child are minimal. They instruct the landlord that in future they should only consider refusal of proposed tenants where the staircase might pose a hazard to specifically their children. 

A landlord accepts a prospective tenant in principle but cannot secure rent guarantee insurance with the preferred provider due to their receiving benefits. That particular insurer requires that such tenants meet a higher income requirement or provide a guarantor which, in this case, they are unable to do. The landlord rejects the tenant, who reports this to the local authority. 

The local authority decides that discrimination has taken place as neither rent guarantee insurance nor a guarantor is required to grant a tenancy, and, whilst a landlord may require a guarantor from all prospective tenants to ensure a sustainable tenancy, in this case it is only in practice being required of benefits recipients. They also state that while the landlord may not be able to use their regular or preferred provider, other products on the market may be available. These products may be offered at increased rates, but minimising business costs cannot be treated as a legitimate aim in relation to discrimination.

You can contact us using this form if you have any questions. If there is a technical problem with the page, you can report it at the bottom of this page.