Rental discrimination

Since 1 May 2026 it has been unlawful in England to shut a renter out of a property because they claim benefits or have children — enforced by councils with financial penalties, not by tenants in court.

Is a No DSS advert illegal now?

In England, an advert of that kind is the clearest example of what the Renters' Rights Act 2025 prohibits. A landlord or agent must not, because a person is or may be a benefits claimant, prevent them from enquiring about the property, accessing information about it, viewing it or entering into a tenancy. A property portal that only hosts the advert is not liable for it.

Can a landlord still refuse me because I cannot afford the rent?

Yes. The Act expressly preserves the ability to take a prospective tenant's income into account when assessing whether they could afford the rent. What it prevents is treating benefits income as disqualifying in itself, or applying a rule that makes benefits claimants less likely to get a tenancy.

Who enforces the rules on children and benefits discrimination?

Local housing authorities. They can impose a financial penalty of up to £7,000 on a landlord or agent who breaches the discrimination rules, and can impose multiple penalties on someone who breaches them repeatedly. This is an enforcement regime rather than a tenant compensation claim.

Can I claim compensation myself?

Not under the children and benefits provisions, which are enforced by councils. Where the discrimination is because of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 — for example race, disability, sex, religion or belief — a claim can be brought in the county court for damages including compensation for injury to feelings.

What about a clause in the tenancy or the landlord's mortgage?

A term in a buy-to-let mortgage or a superior lease that prohibits letting to benefits claimants or to tenants with children has no effect. A term in a tenancy preventing a tenant from claiming benefits, or from having a child live with or visit them, also has no effect, subject to a narrow exception for insurance contracts entered into or extended before 1 May 2026.

Are there any lawful reasons to refuse a family with children?

A landlord or agent has a defence if the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Refusing a let that would result in statutory overcrowding is the example usually given. A general preference for tenants without children is not a legitimate aim.

Two regimes, doing different jobs

Discrimination in renting is governed by two separate bodies of law that are easy to confuse, and confusing them leads people to the wrong remedy.

The Equality Act 2010 has applied for years. A person letting or managing accommodation must not discriminate against, harass or victimise someone because of a

. For the purposes of renting out a home those are disability, race, religion or belief, pregnancy or maternity, sex, gender reassignment and sexual orientation.

, indirect discrimination,

and victimisation are all covered, and the remedy is a claim in the county court for damages, which can include compensation for injured feelings.

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 added something different from 1 May 2026. Having children and claiming benefits are not protected characteristics, so the Equality Act never caught “No DSS” or “no children” head-on — tenants had to argue indirect sex or disability discrimination, which was slow and uncertain. Sections 33 and 34 of the Act make the conduct unlawful directly. But Parliament chose local authority enforcement rather than a tenant claim, which changes entirely what a renter can do about it.

What the Renters' Rights Act prohibits

• Blocking access to the market.
• A landlord or agent must not, because a person has children or claims benefits, prevent them from enquiring whether a property is available, accessing information about it, viewing it, or entering into a tenancy.
• Practices with the same effect.
• Applying a provision, criterion or practice that makes benefits claimants, or people with children, less likely to obtain a tenancy is caught too. A “professionals only” policy or a guarantor rule applied selectively can fall here.
• Discriminatory terms.
• A term in a buy-to-let mortgage or a superior lease prohibiting letting to benefits claimants or to families has no effect. Nor does a tenancy term preventing a tenant from claiming benefits or from having a child live with or visit them, subject to the pre-1 May 2026 insurance exception.
• Publishing a “No DSS” advert is the paradigm breach. A portal that only publishes the advert, or provides the means for landlord and tenant to communicate, is not itself liable.

The provisions apply to lettings in England that may give rise to a relevant tenancy. Social housing and supported accommodation sit outside them.

What is still allowed

Two carve-outs do most of the work in practice, and understanding them prevents wasted complaints.

The first is affordability. A landlord or agent may take a prospective tenant’s income into account when considering whether they could afford the rent. The line is between assessing income — lawful — and disregarding or discounting benefits income because of what it is, or setting an income multiple that only working households could meet. In practice the distinction usually shows up in how the decision was communicated: an affordability assessment that considered all income looks very different in writing from an agent saying the landlord does not take housing benefit.

The second is the proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim defence, which applies to the children provisions. Refusing a let because the household size would cause statutory overcrowding is the standard example. The aim has to be legitimate and the refusal has to be proportionate to it; a preference is neither.

There is also a narrow insurance defence. Where a landlord’s insurance contract prevents letting to households with children or on benefits, and that contract was entered into or extended before 1 May 2026, they have a defence. Contracts entered into or extended after that date do not assist.

What to do if it happens to you

Evidence first. Screenshot the advert before it is edited, keep the email or message in which the reason was given, and note the date, time and name of anyone who said it on the phone. A tenant with a screenshot of “sorry, no DSS” has something a council can act on. A tenant with a recollection of a conversation usually does not.

Then report it to the local housing authority for the area where the property is. The council can impose a financial penalty of up to £7,000 on a landlord or agent who breaches the discrimination rules, and can impose further penalties where the breaches are repeated. Since 1 May 2026 the

is also available for complaints about landlord conduct, and the

gives councils a much better picture of who is letting what.

Be clear about what this route produces. A penalty is paid to the council, not to you. If you want compensation, the question is whether the treatment also amounted to discrimination because of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 — for example, where a rule about children falls hardest on single mothers, or where benefits status is a proxy for disability. That is a county court claim for damages, including injury to feelings, and it is a materially harder case to build than a complaint to a council.

A renter with a six-year-old daughter, working part time and receiving Universal Credit towards her rent, enquires about a two-bedroom flat advertised at £950 a month. The agent replies by email: “the landlord is looking for professionals with no children and does not accept benefits.”

Reason given in writing

children and benefits

Affordability assessed?

no — refused before viewing

report to local housing authority

Maximum penalty per breach

£7,000, payable to the council

The email is the case. It states both prohibited reasons, and it shows the refusal came before any affordability assessment, which removes the obvious defence. The penalty goes to the council rather than to the renter — so if she also wants compensation, the separate question is whether a “no children” rule put her at a particular disadvantage as a woman, which would be an Equality Act claim in the county court.

Renters' Rights Act 2025

Protected characteristic

Direct discrimination

Private Rented Sector Ombudsman

Renters' Rights Act 2025, section 33

Shelter Legal — rental discrimination

Rental Discrimination — Renters' Rights Glossary

What the Renters' Rights Act 2025 bans on children and benefits discrimination cover, what affordability checks are still allowed, who enforces the rules, and when an Equality Act claim is the right route.