Can landlords still say no to tenants on benefits under the Renters' Rights Act?

In England, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 turns “no DSS” from a discrimination-risk policy into a direct statutory lettings ban. The position is different across the UK, so each answer states the jurisdiction it is talking about.

Can a landlord still refuse a tenant on housing benefit?

Before the Renters’ Rights Act, a blanket refusal of housing-benefit tenants rested mainly on one non-binding 2020 county court finding; from 1 May 2026, landlords in England and Wales must not stop someone entering a tenancy because they are or may be a benefits claimant. That covers an HMO landlord renting out five rooms individually: you do not have to accept an applicant who fails affordability, referencing, right-to-rent or suitability checks, but you cannot run a blanket “no housing benefit”, “no DSS” or “employed tenants only” filter. The Act says a relevant person must not, “on the basis that a person is or may be a benefits claimant,” prevent that person entering a tenancy. Scotland and Wales enforce this as a criminal offence rather than England’s civil-penalty system; Northern Ireland has no equivalent “no benefits” letting statute, although separate sex or disability discrimination law may still matter. The market has not caught up: in the 2024 English Private Landlord Survey, 38% of landlords still said they were unwilling to let to tenants receiving housing support including Universal Credit.

Do letting and estate agents have to accept tenants on benefits?

Letting and estate agents in England and Wales do not have to accept every tenant on benefits, but they must not reject, filter out or refuse viewings to applicants because they are or may be benefits claimants. The Renters’ Rights Act duty binds the agent directly because a “relevant person” includes “a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord.” In practice, an agent can still apply ordinary, evidence-based checks: rent affordability, guarantor requirements where they are genuinely applied case by case, references, previous arrears, fraud concerns, right to rent in England, and whether the applicant suits the property. What the agent cannot do is advertise “no DSS”, suppress benefit claimants before the landlord sees them, or tell staff to refuse Universal Credit applicants as a class. The older Equality Act route already made blanket “no benefits” policies risky; the Renters’ Rights Act makes the letting-process ban explicit.

Can you be fined for your letting agent's no-DSS policy?

In England, yes: a landlord can face a civil penalty for a letting agent’s blanket “no DSS” screening if the landlord is responsible for the breach, and the statutory maximum is £7,000. Government guidance says civil penalties for rental-discrimination breaches may be imposed on “any prospective landlord, and any person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, who is responsible for the breach or offence,” so liability is not limited to the person who typed the advert or set the filter. The published guidance starting point is reported as £6,000 for discrimination against people on benefits or with children, but the Act caps the financial penalty at £7,000. Wales and Scotland do not use England’s civil-penalty model for this point: the Renters’ Rights Act explanatory notes say breaches in Wales and Scotland are subject to criminal sanctions, and the Scottish provision sets a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Can you ask about employment status if your mortgage or insurer requires employed tenants?

In England, a landlord may ask about employment status as part of referencing, but cannot use a mortgage or renewed insurance term to impose a blanket ban on benefits claimants; the mortgage clause is void outright, while an insurance clause is treated differently for existing policies. Employment status itself is not listed as an Equality Act protected characteristic, but a blanket “employed tenants only” rule can still be indirect discrimination where it disadvantages groups protected by sex or disability and cannot be justified. The Renters’ Rights Act goes further for mortgages: a mortgage term requiring a landlord to prohibit a relevant or regulated tenant from being a benefits claimant is “of no effect.” Insurance is not flattened into the same rule. For England, the Act’s insurance provision applies to contracts entered into, or whose duration is extended, on or after the commencement day, so an old running policy may still matter until renewal or extension. Ask only what you need for lawful referencing, not to operate a benefits-status exclusion.

Last reviewed August 2026.

Sources

• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 s.34 — “(a)on the basis that a person is or may be a benefits claimant, prevent the person from—” Source
• House of Commons Library, quoting York County Court order — “The Defendant's former policy of rejecting tenancy applications because the applicant is in receipt of Housing Benefit was unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010.” Source
• Nearly Legal — “What it means is that a blanket policy of refusing potential tenants who claim housing benefit is unlawful.” Source
• English Private Landlord Survey 2024 — “Tenants who landlords were unwilling to let to included those with a history of rent arrears (90% unwilling) and those in receipt of housing support including Universal Credit (UC) (38% unwilling).” Source
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Part 1 Chapter 3 — “(b)a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord;” Source
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 s.40 — “The amount of a financial penalty imposed under this section is to be determined by the authority imposing it, but must not be more than £7,000.” Source
• GOV.UK civil-penalties guidance — “Civil penalties for breaches and offences relating to rental discrimination and rental bidding may be imposed on any prospective landlord, and any person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, who is responsible for the breach or offence.” Source
• Cornerstone Barristers — “In relation to penalties, the current guidance published on 13 November 2025 – “Civil penalties under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and other housing legislation” – suggests the starting point for discrimination against those on benefits or with children in the lettings process under sections 33 and 34 should be £6,000.” Source
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 s.50 — “A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.” Source
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Explanatory Notes — “Breaches in Wales and Scotland will be subject to criminal sanctions.” Source
• Housing Rights NI — “These cases are not binding outside of England.” Source
• Equality Act 2010 s.19 — “The relevant protected characteristics are—” Source
• Equality Act 2010 s.19 — “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.” Source
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 s.37 — “A term of a mortgage of premises that consist of or include a dwelling is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) requiring a mortgagor to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy from being a benefits claimant.” Source
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Chapter 3 insurance provision — “This section applies to contracts of insurance which were entered into or whose duration was extended on or after the day on which this section comes into force.” Source