From the Government’s guidance document below. Previously any action against the landlord would rely on the tenant suing them or persuading the Council they should take action, both of which rarely happened. The new duty on Councils to act in each case and the greatly increased penalties that the Council can now keep, are game changing. I can think of many examples of each of these where otherwise decent landlords could make simple errors through lack of knowledge and face large fines/penalties as a result:
failure to give a written statement of terms under section 16D of the Housing Act 1988
failure to give an existing tenant information about changes made by the Renters’ Rights Act under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 6 to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
attempting to let a property for a fixed term under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
attempting to end a tenancy orally or by service of a notice to quit under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
serving an eviction notice that attempts to end a tenancy outside the prescribed section 8 process under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
relying on a ground where the person does not reasonably believe that the landlord is/will be able to obtain possession under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
relying on a ground knowing the landlord would not be able to obtain possession or being reckless as to whether they would under section 16J of the Housing Act 1988
failing to provide a tenant with prior notice that a ground which requires it may be used under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
reletting or remarketing a property before expiry of the 12 month no-let period after using the moving and selling grounds under sections 16E and 16J of the Housing Act 1988
discriminating against prospective tenants during the letting process on the grounds that those tenants are in receipt of benefits or have children under sections 33 and 34 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
marketing a letting without stating the proposed rent under section 56 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
inviting or encouraging any person to offer to pay an amount of rent under the proposed letting that exceeds the stated rent under section 56 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
accepting an offer from any person to pay an amount of rent under the proposed letting that exceeds the stated rent under section 56 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
Eg Perfectly decent responsible LLs wont be contravening overcrowding enforcement orders for their properties through simple admin errors.
If you are a responsible LL and the council has told you to address overcrowding in your property and you fail to do, so its not an admin error. You’ll have been warned that if you dont comply you will face a big fine.
A tiny fraction get fines for various of these items already. Irrespective of having a duty, Councils will still rely on tenants to find out when it happens. A bigger but still tiny fraction will get fined instead and it will drop off as people and letting agents learn the new rules.
It will not affect the vast majority of LLs.
It will predominantly affect those already behaving badly who eg ignore enforcement orders, fail to address improvement notices or to get hmo licences when needed or to follow the rules for hmo properties or to follow licensing regs, or to adhere to breach orders. None of these things can possibly be described as ‘simple admin error’.
If you are not following the right rules to evict you already have a high penalty of lost rent when you dont get a possession order. If you are using Openrent rightmove etc you already have to state the rent (who would advertise without the price of something really?).
Discrimination against those on benefits (“no dss” in ads etc) is already illegal and has been for many years. Are you really saying you think it’s a simple admin error ??
Anyone guilty of these things (not the not publishing a price which is a new offence but easily avoided and must be rare) already faces penalties and isnt a good responsible LL making ‘simple admin errors’
I think we’ve probably both set out our points of view we’ll enough for anyone reading to make up their own mind, so I’m content for us to just agree to disagree.
On whether discrimination re those on benefits (or rather a blanket ban) is illegal, it can be legal if proportionate to a legitimate purpose such as a requirement by a lender.
But for those who wish to read more, there’s a good briefing by the house of commons library
“Can private landlords refuse to let to benefit claimants and people with children?”
Ill just say that a single case a few months ago and some tenant comments doesnt amount to good evidence that huge numbers are ‘at risk’ from these measures. Since the majority of LLs even accidentally wont be overcrowding their properties it follows most wont get enforcement orders nor be at risk of a fine for not doing what the enforcement order erm orders them to do.
It’s bound to catch some people out, but it’s like every other enforcement process (bailiffs, tax demands, warnings from the police) - if I’m clearly told i need to do something or face a big fine and ignore it that’s me taking a risk not me being a poor good LL who made an admin error
And its not random- we all choose whether to keep up with the rules for a business we run, get training, use a letting agent or whether to ‘hope for the best’
Its not illegal full stop. It may be unlawful under some circumstances, such as single mothers, but whilst it would be foolish for anyone to have and advertise a blanket ban on benefits given two successful high profile cases, there is no law prohibiting this discrimination.
The civil offenses under the Equalities act that people may face penalties for (based on case law precedents) if they are ‘foolish’ and impose blanket ‘No DSS’ bans may be unlawful not illegal so you dont get a criminal record. They are still an offense under the law and prohibited by the Equalities Act which is an Act of Parliament setting out laws.
The fact they are unlawful under civil law doesn’t mean the ‘foolish’ actions are either ok or arent prohibited by the law.
What does ‘unlawful’ mean if it doesnt mean prohibited by the law?
I think the other David might mean that being in receipt of benefits is not per se a protected characteristic under law and therefore to discriminate on this basis, while not being fair, is not contrary to the Equalities Act.
And thats why i didnt say 'google the answer ’ and instead suggested reading the House of commons library note on this which explains such discrimination may be justified if proportionate and meeting a legitimate need such as a condition by a mortgage lender.
In this case it means that the Equalities Act doesn’t make benefits discrimination illegal, and the case law may only be applied, (because the existing cases are lower court and not binding) if the discrimination closely matches the existing circumstances of the established cases and not otherwise. So unless it involves women or people with disabilities, not.
However, as I said, these were high profile cases and Shelter and others have been ready to pounce on new examples, so it would be reckless to discriminate solely based on this criteria at the moment.
