No Kids or DSS

The government has said several times that it would legislate to ban landlords refusing to rent properties to tenants on the grounds that they had children, that they were on benefits, or that they had pets. Surprisingly, when the Renters (Reform) Bill was published the only element that was mentioned was that of pets and there was an implied term added to all agreements that a landlord would not unreasonably refuse a request for a pet. The rest was missing. The government frustratingly indicated that these bits would be added later in the manner of a child handing in bits of its homework after the deadline. 

The recent additions by way of amendment fill in some of the gaps. The government has moved a series of amendments starting with NC8 which prohibits discrimination on the basis that a person might have a child living with them or visiting. Likewise there are similar prohibitions where a person is a benefits claimant. That means a landlord must not prevent a person from:

• enquiring whether a property is available to rent;
• finding out information about that property;
• viewing that property; or
• entering into a tenancy.

Any breach of these prohibitions can be punished by a local authority levying a financial penalty of up to £5,000. However, unlike other financial penalties where the local authority must be satisfied to the criminal standard of not having any reasonable doubts in these cases the local authority only needs to be satisfied to the civil standard being the balance of probabilities. So the proof required is far less. Further these penalties can be levied on anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf (ie. letting agents) as well as on landlords themselves.

There are further anti-avoidance provisions so that it is also unlawful to impose a restriction or requirement that would mean a person would be less likely to enter into a tenancy with a child or if they were on benefits.

There are some exceptions but they are limited. For children it would be necessary to show that the prohibition is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That is likely to be very restricted indeed. In relation to benefits it is still legitimate to consider a person’s income when renting a property. But income is generally considered to include benefits to the total amount being received by a person must be considered and not just their salary.

There are a series of further connected prohibitions. So any clause in a tenancy agreement, any superior lease, any insurance policy, or any mortgage which prohibits renting to people with children or who are on benefits is rendered of no effect as well. Landlords are therefore protected from mortgage companies or insurers who impose prohibitions that would be unlawful for the landlord to replicate.

Interestingly, and contrary to the common position that housing law is made in Westminster for England and Cardiff for Wales the prohibitions on refusing to rent to children or those on benefits are also to be inserted into the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, presumably with the acquiescence of the Welsh government and Senedd. So Welsh contract holders will obtain the same protections as English tenants in this area. It is, however, unusual to see a Westminster Bill with Welsh in it and I suspect the bills committee did not spend much time discussing the accuracy of the translation!