Do you also have problems finding suitable lodgers?

[Colin3]

I have to say that in my area the local authority has been great in the building inspectors dept.. The “Landlords” department has been ok so far but are 18 months behind in processing applications. They are overwhelmed with checking and inspections. Not surprising since government funding has been cut over a few years. The inspectors are under pressure as never before

[landlordlodger]

I’m glad this topic is interesting to discuss, but I do want to make sure viewers understand the original point was regarding landlord with lodger not landlord with tenant. I do believe there is potential for this, and may help also protect landlords who receive complaints about being “discriminatory”. Perhaps a matching algorithm with the detailed list of things that landlords can legally screen on which are agreed by lodgers and landlords before matches are made, and then up to the landlord’s discretion to continue with real person interviews etc. And at all stages, both parties are aware of their rights so this way everyone is protected.

[David122]

@David240

@David122 there’s was no downside to them complaining at the moment.

Councils are currently under no duty to investigate and will for the most part simply refer the tenant to solicitors or Shelter.

If there really are so many disgruntled tenants out there who will complain on these grounds that Councils will be “overrun” (which is your suspicion but which you’ve provided no evidence to support), that’s all the more reason they will need to prioritize their efforts on those cases where the tenant provides credible evidence that will stand up in court.

As I said, councils being over-run is my suspicion, not something I’m claiming as a fact. In truth we have no idea how this will play out, but the difference after May 1st is that a Council that is presented with a reasonable claim of discrimination by a tenant will have no choice but to deal with it. If indeed they are over-run, that may be little more than writing to the landlord demanding copies of their process or even their written assessment of each applicant. If reasonable evidence is provided, it may go no further and they may only investigate further with landlords whose response is not based on objective criteria. Assessments such as “I’ve had problems before with Universal Credit” or “Not suitable for children as recently decorated to a high standard” or emotive statements such as “they seemed quite aggressive” or “they weren’t a good match”. I accept that there are many unknowns here, but the government’s guidance to local authorities “Rental discrimination under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025” is the starting point and is therefore a risk that landlords should be aware of.

Councils are not getting extra £ to deal with this and dealing with genuinely rogue landlords or blatant discrimination will take priority.

They are getting some extra funding, but the Government’s view seems to be that the extra duties will largely be funded by the receipts from fines and civil penalties, which in the case of discrimination is up to £7,000 each time. If they’ve already committed a breach of the Act for a separate matter, it is up to £40,000.

And they do still need evidence to prove discrimination not simply the tenant’s disgruntled complaining. Even with balance of probability

The tenants will need to have reasonable evidence of discrimination, but they don’t have to prove anything and the onus will be on the landlord to prove their assessments comply with the legislation. Its hard to say what will constitute reasonable evidence. In some cases it may be a written statement from them saying for example that the landlord raised concerns about their benefits payments during the interview and then subsequently rejected their application. Local authorities facing multiple cases will probably require something more substantial. However, if enough tenants complain about a particular landlord, this may cause them to act.

In these circumstances any LL can write down ‘I based my decision on the information provided by the potential tenants on areas such as affordability’ and the Council has no reason to dispute that. They cannot go on fishing expeditions requiring information about other candidates because that will breach data protection. So it will be hard for them to prove anything in the circumstances @Colin3 describes.

They can and in some cases will go on fishing expeditions and they can even enter premises and seize laptops, phones and documents if landlords are not forthcoming. These powers came into being on 27 December last year. It isn’t a breach of data protection as they have a legal duty. The landlord should make sure that their GDPR privacy notice states that information may be shared with the Council.

Landlords should refer to their support bodies, such as landlord associations for guidance on what a compliant process would look like.

(A further twenty characters)

[David240]

@David240

They can and in some cases will go on fishing expeditions and they can even enter premises and seize laptops, phones and documents if landlords are not forthcoming. These powers came into being on 27 December last year. It isn’t a breach of data protection as they have a legal duty. The landlord should make sure that their GDPR privacy notice states that information may be shared with the Council.

Landlords should refer to their support bodies, such as landlord associations for guidance on what a compliant process would look like

Well all your replies are fair comments and I agree with your expanded comments about tenants needing to provide evidence and the need for guidance on an example compliant process. (Just like we have template ASTs). We already know in adverts we can’t say ‘no pets’ this is basically the same - we need guidance on what can or can’t be used to choose a tenant. Fortunately there is lots of guidance about what counts as discrimination in other contexts.

The original question was what if tenant just claimed discrimination based just on saying eg ‘I am black’. Hopefully you agree a council shouldn’t be entering Premises based on that..

As for entering Premises etc - well if a landlord was foolish enough to refuse to explain their process for selecting tenants, and there is other suggestive evidence, in extreme cases why not. Just like entering to get health and safety info I expect. If it became apparent that someone never rented to any black tenants in a large block they owned nor for lots of other properties they owned, and LL refused to provide records then if council can get hold off their application process records and eg these showed all applicants who were black were refused that would show the process was discrimination. But that sort of thing will be pretty rare.

As you say LLs need to be aware of the risks. I am sceptical that there will be huge numbers of such cases but there is discrimination in society and no doubt by LLs and some people are bound to be caught out, just like someone will wrongly use an old AST template and try to propose a fixed term tenancy and some people do get fined by property tribunal for wrongly imposing fees that aren’t allowed under the Tenancy Act.

[David240]

@David122 ( @Colin3 to see)

Ps thanks for referencing the guidance to councils

(Rental discrimination under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 published 13 nov 2025)

This makes clear the protection under RRA is about not discriminating against those on benefits or children. Nothing to do with discrimination on other characteristics such as race.

Extract below

“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.”

So if a council is told by a refused applicant ‘I was refused because I am black’ that’s not rental discrimination the Council has no duty to investigate etc

[David122]

Yes, I would think that for the most part Councils will need something more than a suspicion from the tenant, although if they can get their friend to sign a statement saying they witnessed discrimination….. I’ve seen nothing about redress against tenants for lying to the Council.

Without wishing to single out the OP in this thread, I suspect that the notion of finding a tenant that is a suitable match is quite common. As is the idea that if asked, a landlord can just say I preferred a different tenant. These sorts of assessment processes are not going to cut it in future and will leave the landlord at risk of a large fine.

You may be right about the number of cases and I hope you are. I also hope that the ones that do occur are widely publicised as cautionary tales.

Yes, the RRA is just about discrimination on the basis on benefits and children and Councils won’t be compelled to deal with discrimination based on the Equalities Act. Its just that the point is the same. A compliant tenant assessment process will need to consider all forms of discrimination and so landlords need to be careful of the the ways in which they describe all their decisions.

[Colin3]

I guess that the landlords record of who he has rented to in the past would be usefull I have had two lots of “couples” , black people , Romanian, pensioner, singles, partial benefit tenant. So track record a good point

[David122]

My understanding is that if the Council do investigate a discrimination claim, they won’t be interested in the landlord’s track record, just the decision in relation to the current case.

[Colin3]

Understood . I was thinking eg if someone says “I did not get it because I am black” you could say “hang on, I HAVE had black tenants “. Or on benefits.

[landlordlodger]

lol Colin with the classic “it’s ok I can do/say that because I have [minority group] friends”.

I’m prototyping a matching assistant where you stay in full control of who you accept, and everything runs within normal UK lodger rules.
I need 5–10 landlords to try the first version next week.
• Takes ~10 minutes to try
• Lifetime access for early testers if it becomes a real product
Reply here or DM me “beta” to join

[David240]

@landlordlodger

Agree that a pattern of not discrimination previously def doesn’t prove not discriminating in latest instance. But may support other evidence that the LL process isn’t discriminatory automatically. (Unlike eg regularly advertising ‘no dss’ - which is actually already illegal)

Equally I suspect if a LL never previously rented to people on benefits it would often be used as part of a claim of rental discrimination by the unsuccessful applicant.

But if somebody on benefits or with children claims rental discrimination then if the successful candidate the failed applicant lost out to was on benefits or had children, it does help counter the claim I think

Ps found there’s specific guidance on rental discrimination with examples, part of 24 RRA guides Google

‘Government gives landlords 24 different guides to Renters Rights Act’