\

What \

Is it illegal for a landlord to say "no DSS" or refuse housing benefit tenants?

Since 1 May 2026 it is unlawful under sections 33 and 34 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 for a landlord or agent in England to discriminate against a prospective tenant because they have children or because they receive benefits, including by advertising on that basis — a "no DSS" advert is the clearest example. Before that date, the same conduct could still be challenged, but as indirect sex or disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which required showing a disadvantage to a protected group rather than simply pointing to a rule against benefit claimants.

Can a landlord still reject me for affordability reasons?

Yes, in principle. The new rules target a blanket exclusion based on receiving benefits or having children, or advertising that discourages such applicants — not a landlord's right to check that a prospective tenant can afford the rent. Reasonable, individual affordability assessment applied consistently to every applicant, counting benefit income the same as other income, is generally a different thing from refusing to consider anyone on benefits at all. Where the line sits in a specific case can still be argued, and it is worth keeping any evidence of how you were actually assessed.

What is "No DSS" discrimination evidence I should keep?

Keep the advert or listing (a screenshot with the date and URL), any written correspondence with the landlord or agent that mentions benefits or housing benefit, and notes of anything said on the phone or in person, including the date and who said it. If you were told you were rejected for an unrelated reason but you suspect benefits status was the real one, keep a record of that conversation too — timing and wording both matter if you later need to show what happened.

Who do I complain to if I think I have faced this kind of discrimination?

You can report the landlord or agent to your local housing authority (the council), which can investigate and has the power to impose a civil penalty under section 40 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 for breach of the new anti-discrimination provisions. You may also have your own civil claim, depending on the facts, including under the Equality Act 2010 if the conduct amounts to indirect discrimination on a protected ground. A local Shelter office or Citizens Advice can help you work out which route, or both, fits your situation.

Does this cover letting agents as well as landlords?

Yes. The Renters' Rights Act 2025's anti-discrimination provisions are aimed at the person or organisation handling the letting, which includes managing and letting agents acting on a landlord's behalf, not only the landlord personally. An agent cannot apply a "no benefits" or "no children" filter on a landlord's behalf and treat that as outside the rules.

Does "benefits status" only mean Universal Credit or housing benefit?

It is intended to cover a prospective tenant's reliance on state benefits more broadly, including Universal Credit (whether or not its housing element is paid), legacy housing benefit, and related support, rather than being limited to one named benefit. If you are unsure whether a specific benefit you receive is covered in your situation, that is worth checking against the Act's wording or with an adviser rather than assuming either way.

What "No DSS" discrimination means

A “no DSS” policy — the phrase outlived the Department of Social Security itself, which was replaced decades ago, but stuck as shorthand for refusing applicants who receive housing-related benefits — is a blanket rule or advertised position that a landlord or agent will not consider a tenant because they are on benefits. The same pattern extends to refusing applicants because they have children, sometimes advertised as "no children" or "professionals only." Both share the same structural problem: the applicant is excluded not because of anything individual about them, but because of a category they fall into.

Historically, this sat in a legally awkward place. There was no provision saying "landlords must not refuse benefit claimants." Instead, claimants and their advisers had to frame it as a form of discrimination already prohibited by the Equality Act 2010 — arguing that a blanket ban on benefit claimants disproportionately affects women, who are statistically more likely to rely on housing benefit, and disabled people, who are more likely to depend on benefit income. That indirect route worked, but it depended on each individual tenant building a discrimination case around statistics and protected characteristics, rather than pointing to a rule that simply said this was not allowed.

The case law before the new Act

The best-known illustration is a July 2020 County Court case in which a disabled single mother, able to pay six months' rent in advance and holding good references, was rejected by a letting agent purely because she received housing benefit. The court declared the agent's blanket policy unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex and disability, contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010 — women and disabled people are statistically more likely to rely on housing benefit, so a rule excluding all benefit claimants falls more heavily on them even though it does not mention sex or disability directly. A further case decided later the same year, in Birmingham, reached a similar conclusion on similar facts.

These were County Court decisions, not binding on other courts, but persuasive, and they put letting agents and landlords on notice that a blanket “no DSS” rule carried real legal risk even without a named statutory offence. They also showed the limits of relying on indirect discrimination alone: a tenant had to establish the statistical disadvantage and connect it to a protected characteristic, a more demanding case to build than simply showing a rule existed.

The new statutory footing

The Renters' Rights Act 2025 closed that gap directly. From 1 May 2026, sections 33 and 34 make it unlawful in England for a landlord or agent to discriminate against a prospective tenant because they have children (s.33) or because of their benefits status (s.34) — including through advertising, such as a listing stating “no DSS” or “no children.” Related sections extend the same principle to terms imposed in the tenancy itself, and to terms in superior leases, mortgages and insurance contracts that would otherwise pressure a landlord into discriminating this way, so a landlord cannot point to a mortgage condition as an excuse. Section 40 backs this with a financial civil penalty a local housing authority can impose for a breach, separate from a court claim.

This matters for tenants in a practical way: a complaint under the new provisions does not require showing a statistical disadvantage to a protected group the way the Equality Act route did. The conduct itself — refusing or discouraging an applicant because of benefits status or children — is what the Act targets. The Equality Act route has not disappeared and can still run alongside a complaint under the new provisions, particularly where sex or disability discrimination is also arguable on the facts, but a tenant is no longer solely dependent on building that case.

What ordinary affordability checks are still allowed

None of this stops a landlord assessing whether a prospective tenant can afford the rent. Referencing, income checks, guarantor requirements and credit checks applied consistently to every applicant — and treating benefit income the same way as other income when working out affordability — are a different thing from a blanket rule that excludes anyone receiving benefits regardless of their individual financial position. The problem the Act targets is the blanket exclusion and the discriminatory advertising, not reasonable affordability assessment carried out the same way for every applicant.

In practice, the distinction can still be argued over in a specific case — a landlord who applies an income multiple that, as a matter of fact, no benefit claimant could ever meet might be accused of using an affordability test as a disguised blanket exclusion. If you believe that happened to you, the same kind of evidence matters: what you were told, what the criteria actually were, and whether they were applied the same way to applicants who were not on benefits.

A single parent receiving Universal Credit, including its housing element, applies for a two-bedroom flat advertised online. The listing states “no DSS, working professionals only.” The agent confirms by email that the property is “not suitable for benefit tenants” and does not ask about her income, references or ability to pay.

“No DSS, working professionals only”

Basis for refusal given

Benefits status, no individual assessment

s.34 complaint to council; possible Equality Act claim

Because the refusal happened after 1 May 2026 and was based squarely on benefits status rather than any individual affordability check, it falls within section 34 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025. She can report the agent and the listing to her local council, which can investigate and consider a civil penalty under section 40. Depending on the detail, she may also have a separate Equality Act 2010 claim if she can show the policy disproportionately affects women or disabled applicants — a route still available alongside, not instead of, the new statutory one.

Discretionary Housing Payment

Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

Renters' Rights Act 2025, section 33

Renters' Rights Act 2025, section 34

Renters' Rights Act 2025, section 40

Equality Act 2010, sections 19 and 29

Rental discrimination

"No DSS" Discrimination — Renters' Rights Glossary

What "no DSS" discrimination is, how it was challenged before the Renters' Rights Act 2025, and the new sections 33 and 34 that make refusing tenants on benefits or with children unlawful.