Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
In England, landlords and agents must not advertise, filter or refuse applicants because they receive benefits or have children. That includes wording such as “No DSS”, “working tenants only”, “no benefits” or “no children”.
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 makes this a statutory rental discrimination breach for assured and regulated tenancies in England, whenever the tenancy was agreed. Local authorities can enforce the rules and issue civil penalties of up to £7,000 for a breach. Further penalties of up to £7,000 can follow if the conduct continues for more than 28 days after a final notice or appeal decision, or if the same kind of breach is repeated within five years.
This article focuses on adverts and listing practices. For the wider statutory regime, see the Guild article Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Ban on Rental Discrimination.
A landlord or agent must not take steps intended to make a person less likely to enter into a tenancy because they have children or receive benefits. The rule is not limited to a final refusal. It can cover the whole letting process, including:
The protection is broad. It covers people who receive benefits and people the landlord or agent believes receive benefits, even if that belief is wrong. It also covers children who would live at or visit the property.
Landlords can still check whether the rent is affordable. The important point is that the same affordability process must be applied fairly to all applicants.
Benefit income, pension income and other lawful income should be counted and treated equally. A landlord should not set a rule that, in practice, excludes benefit claimants by ignoring part of their income or by refusing reasonable evidence such as a benefit letter, bank statement or payslip.
If several applicants meet the affordability requirement, the landlord must not use benefit status or having children as the deciding factor between them.
Universal Credit direct payments may help in some cases where rent-payment arrangements are a concern. They do not justify excluding benefit applicants or advertising a property as “No DSS”.
A landlord cannot rely on a mortgage term or superior lease term that says the property must not be let to people receiving benefits or to households with children. For assured and regulated tenancies in England, those terms no longer have effect for this purpose.
Insurance needs slightly more care. A discriminatory term in an insurance contract made before 1 May 2026 can be relied on only until the policy is renewed or ends. Once the policy is renewed, or if the policy started on or after 1 May 2026, a term excluding benefit claimants or children has no effect for this purpose.
There is a limited exception for some restrictions involving children where the restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. GOV.UK gives examples such as retirement housing, student accommodation, genuine safety concerns, HMO licensing conditions or overcrowding rules.
The exception must be based on the property and the particular restriction. A blanket “no children” policy will be hard to justify. There is no equivalent exception for excluding benefit claimants.
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 also changed how rents are advertised in England. If a property is advertised for letting, the advert must state a single asking rent. Landlords and agents must not invite, encourage or accept offers above that advertised rent.
This is a related rule, not the same as the “No DSS” ban, but it matters when preparing listings. The advert should state the rent clearly and should not suggest that applicants can improve their chances by bidding more.
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 rental discrimination provisions referred to above are England-only. Wales is not covered by those RRA provisions.
The Equality Act 2010 applies in England and Wales. Before the RRA provisions, “No DSS” policies were already being challenged because they could amount to indirect discrimination, particularly against women and disabled people who are more likely to need help with rent.
Shelter supported county court claims against letting agents using blanket “No DSS” policies. In one Birmingham County Court case, a disabled father who received housing benefit was prevented from viewing three properties because the agent had a blanket policy against applicants receiving housing benefit. The court found unlawful indirect disability discrimination.
In an earlier York County Court case, a single mother successfully challenged a letting agent’s refusal to consider applicants receiving housing benefit. Other cases settled, with compensation and apologies. These cases remain useful background for England and Wales, but in England, the main current route is now the statutory RRA rental discrimination regime as well as any Equality Act claim that may arise on the facts.
Rightmove and Zoopla have previously taken action against “No DSS” listings. That remains relevant in practice because many landlords and agents rely on portals to market properties.
GOV.UK guidance says a person or firm is not caught by the RRA rental discrimination restrictions if they only publish adverts, provide a way for landlords to communicate with prospective tenants, or provide a way for prospective tenants to communicate with landlords. That protects pure advert-hosting platforms. It does not protect the landlord or agent who writes, approves or uses a discriminatory advert or filter.
The safest approach is simple: describe the property and the rent, assess affordability fairly, and choose between applicants on lawful tenancy-management grounds rather than benefit status or whether the household includes children.