Discrimination against benefit recipients and families

Short answer

No. In England, a landlord or letting agent generally cannot refuse to rent to you, refuse you a viewing, or withhold information about a property simply because you receive benefits or because you have children. This kind of treatment is now specifically prohibited and is commonly referred to as “rental discrimination” or “DSS discrimination”.

The legal position

There are two overlapping strands of protection.

First, there is a specific statutory prohibition on rental discrimination against people who receive benefits or who have children. Under this regime, a landlord in England must not do anything that makes a prospective tenant less likely to rent, or that prevents them from renting, on the ground that they get benefits or have children. This covers refusing a tenancy, refusing or blocking a viewing, and refusing to give someone information about a property. Blanket adverts or policies such as “No DSS”, “No benefits” or “No children” fall squarely within this. Any term in a tenancy agreement, mortgage condition or superior lease that could be used to discriminate in this way is not valid and cannot be enforced, so a landlord cannot rely on a buy-to-let mortgage clause as a lawful excuse. Breach can attract a financial penalty of up to £7,000 per offence.

Second, and separately, the Equality Act 2010 may apply. Refusing to let to benefit claimants is not itself listed as a protected characteristic, but the courts have accepted that a blanket “No DSS” policy can amount to unlawful indirect discrimination because women and disabled people are statistically more likely to rely on housing-related benefits. A well-known county court decision established that a “No DSS” letting policy indirectly discriminated on the ground of sex. So even aside from the specific rental discrimination rules, a blanket refusal can breach the Equality Act, which opens the door to a discrimination claim and compensation for injury to feelings.

What a landlord can still lawfully do

The protection is against blanket bans and against treating benefits or children as a reason to refuse. It does not force a landlord to let to everyone. A landlord or agent may still:

1. Carry out affordability checks and reference checks, provided they assess you fairly. Crucially, they must count benefits as part of your income when assessing affordability, rather than disregarding benefit income or refusing outright.

2. Refuse on genuine, non-discriminatory grounds, such as a poor reference, a failed credit or right to rent check, or a legitimate affordability shortfall once benefits are included.

3. Refuse to let to a family with children where letting would cause unlawful overcrowding for the size of the property, or where a genuine and lawful restriction (properly evidenced) applies. A landlord needs a genuine, objective reason of this kind; simply not wanting children is not enough.

The key distinction is between a lawful, individualised decision (for example, that the rent is genuinely unaffordable even counting your benefits) and an unlawful blanket refusal or a refusal that is really about benefits or children dressed up as something else.

Look at the real reason

Before assuming discrimination, it is worth pinning down why you were actually refused. If the landlord genuinely turned you down because the property would be overcrowded, because a guarantor requirement was not met, or because your income including benefits does not meet a consistently applied affordability threshold, that may be a lawful commercial decision rather than discrimination. It becomes unlawful where benefits or children were the real reason, where a blanket policy was applied, or where benefit income was ignored in the affordability assessment.

Evidence to gather

If you think you have been refused because of benefits or children, keep everything that shows the reason:

1. Screenshots or copies of any advert saying “No DSS”, “No benefits”, “No children” or similar.

2. Emails, texts, WhatsApp messages or notes of phone calls where the landlord or agent gives their reason.

3. A note of dates, times, names, and what was said, made as soon as possible after the event.

4. Details of the property, the advertised rent, and your income including benefits, so you can show you could in fact afford it.

Practical next steps

1. Raise it in writing with the landlord or agent first. Point out that refusing on the basis of benefits or children is unlawful rental discrimination and may also breach the Equality Act 2010, and ask them to reconsider and to confirm their decision and reasons in writing. Sometimes this alone resolves matters.

2. If a letting agent is involved, complain to the agent and then escalate to their redress scheme. Letting agents must belong to a government-approved redress scheme (The Property Ombudsman or the Property Redress Scheme), which can direct an apology, a change of practice and compensation.

3. Report discriminatory adverts and practices to the local authority, which can enforce the rental discrimination rules, and consider contacting your local trading standards.

4. Get tailored help from Shelter or Citizens Advice, who deal with DSS discrimination regularly and can help you frame a complaint or claim.

5. As a last resort, you can bring a claim in the county court under the Equality Act 2010 for indirect discrimination, which can result in compensation including for injury to feelings. Weigh this against the cost, delay and effort involved, and take advice on the strength of the evidence before issuing.

What would change the answer

The outcome depends heavily on the facts, so a few points matter. If the refusal was genuinely about affordability once your benefits were properly counted, about overcrowding, or about a failed reference or right to rent check, it may be lawful. If it was a blanket “No DSS” or “No children” stance, or benefits income was simply disregarded, it is likely unlawful. It also matters whether you are dealing with a private landlord directly or through an agent, since the agent route gives you the redress scheme option. If you can tell me exactly what reason you were given and whether an agent was involved, I can be more specific about the strongest route for you.