The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has changed more than possession and rent increases. It has also changed how landlords need to approach tenant selection, pet requests and rental advertising.
For landlords, this is an important shift. Some practices that were once common in the private rented sector may now carry greater risk.
Blanket rules such as “no children,” “no benefits,” “professionals only” or “no pets under any circumstances” need careful review.
The key message is simple: landlords can still make sensible decisions, but those decisions need to be fair, reasonable and based on the facts.
Why this matters
Landlords naturally want tenants who can afford the rent, look after the property and comply with the tenancy agreement.
That has not changed.
What has changed is the level of scrutiny around how landlords and agents make those decisions. The Renters’ Rights Act strengthens the focus on fair access to rented homes and restricts practices that unfairly exclude certain groups of tenants.
This is especially relevant to:
- applicants with children;
- tenants who receive benefits;
- pet requests;
- disabled tenants with assistance animals;
- advertising wording;
- referencing decisions;
- affordability checks;
- agent practices.
Landlords should avoid blanket exclusions and instead make decisions based on individual circumstances.
Families with children
The Act restricts landlords and letting agents from unfairly treating applicants or tenants because they have children.
This means landlords should be cautious about adverts or policies that automatically exclude families.
Risky wording may include:
- “no children”;
- “adults only”;
- “not suitable for families”;
- “single professionals preferred”;
- “couples only”;
- “quiet adult household required.”
There may be genuine reasons why a property is unsuitable for a particular household. For example, overcrowding rules, room size, safety risks or licence restrictions may be relevant.
But the landlord should focus on the property and the facts, not on a blanket assumption that children are unsuitable.
Benefit recipients
Landlords also need to be careful about applicants who receive benefits.
Historically, some adverts used phrases such as “no DSS” or excluded tenants who received housing support. The new regime makes this much riskier.
A landlord can still assess affordability. A landlord does not have to accept an applicant who cannot reasonably afford the rent. But the decision should not be based simply on the fact that the applicant receives benefits.
The safer approach is to use consistent affordability criteria for all applicants.
For example, landlords can consider:
- income;
- benefit entitlement;
- rent level;
- guarantor availability;
- references;
- previous rent payment history;
- household size;
- whether the property is affordable overall.
The key issue is consistency. Two applicants should not be treated differently simply because one receives part of their income through benefits.
“Professionals only” wording
Many landlords and agents have used the phrase “professionals only” in adverts.
That wording can be problematic because it may indirectly exclude people who receive benefits, have children, are retired, disabled, self-employed or working in non-traditional arrangements.
It is usually better to describe the property, not the preferred social profile of the tenant.
Instead of saying “professionals only,” an advert can focus on factual details such as:
- property size;
- number of bedrooms;
- occupancy limits;
- rent;
- deposit;
- location;
- transport links;
- whether the property is furnished;
- whether parking is included;
- licence restrictions if applicable.
Landlords should avoid wording that suggests only a particular type of person is welcome.
Pet requests
The Renters’ Rights Act also gives tenants stronger rights to request permission to keep a pet.
This does not mean every pet request must be accepted. It does mean landlords should not rely on an automatic refusal.
A landlord should consider the request properly and make a decision based on the circumstances.
Relevant factors may include:
- type of pet;
- size of pet;
- number of pets;
- property size;
- garden or outdoor space;
- leasehold restrictions;
- shared accommodation;
- allergies in shared housing;
- animal welfare concerns;
- insurance conditions;
- risk of damage;
- previous evidence of responsible pet ownership.
A blanket “no pets” policy may now be difficult to justify.
When can a landlord refuse a pet?
A landlord may still have valid reasons to refuse a pet request.
Examples might include:
- the superior lease prohibits pets;
- the property is too small for the animal;
- the animal would create welfare concerns;
- the property is shared and another occupier has a serious allergy;
- the pet would breach building rules;
- the landlord’s insurance creates a genuine restriction;
- the request involves an unreasonable number of animals;
- there is evidence of likely serious damage or nuisance.
The important point is that the refusal should be reasonable and recorded.
A landlord should be able to explain why the decision was made.
Assistance animals are different
Landlords should take particular care with assistance animals.
An assistance animal may be connected to a disability. That means the issue is not simply a standard pet request. It may involve equality duties and reasonable adjustments.
A blanket ban on pets should not be applied automatically to assistance animals.
Landlords should consider the request carefully, communicate sensitively and avoid assumptions.
Advertising risk
Compliance begins before the tenancy starts.
A landlord or agent may create risk simply through the wording of a property advert.
Problem phrases may include:
- “no DSS”;
- “no benefits”;
- “working tenants only”;
- “professionals only”;
- “no children”;
- “not suitable for families”;
- “no pets ever”;
- “single occupant only” where there is no clear lawful reason;
- “mature tenants only”;
- “ideal for young professionals” if used in a way that appears exclusionary.
Not every descriptive phrase will automatically be unlawful, but landlords should think carefully about how wording may be understood.
The safest approach is to advertise the property, not the type of person the landlord would prefer.
Referencing and affordability
Landlords can still reference tenants.
They can still check affordability, employment, income, rent history and previous landlord references.
What they should avoid is using referencing as a disguised way to exclude protected or restricted groups.
For example, a landlord should avoid saying:
- “we do not accept anyone on benefits”;
- “families are not considered”;
- “children are not suitable here”;
- “pets are always refused”;
- “only full-time employees accepted.”
Instead, landlords should use fair criteria such as:
- can the applicant afford the rent?
- is the property suitable for the household size?
- are references satisfactory?
- are there lawful occupancy restrictions?
- is a guarantor required under the same criteria used for other applicants?
- is there a genuine property-specific reason to refuse?
Keep records of decisions
Because these issues can lead to disputes, landlords should keep clear records.
Useful records may include:
- advert wording;
- applicant enquiries;
- affordability criteria;
- referencing outcomes;
- reasons for refusal;
- pet requests;
- pet request responses;
- evidence of lease restrictions;
- insurance correspondence;
- notes of suitability concerns;
- communications with agents.
The purpose is not to create unnecessary paperwork. It is to show that decisions were made fairly and based on relevant factors.
Agent oversight
Landlords should remember that agents act on their behalf.
If an agent uses outdated adverts, blanket exclusions or inappropriate applicant screening, the landlord may still face consequences.
Landlords should check that agents are not using phrases such as:
- “no DSS”;
- “no children”;
- “professionals only”;
- “no pets under any circumstances.”
They should also ask how agents handle pet requests, benefit applicants, family applicants and affordability assessments.
Common landlord mistakes
1. Keeping old advert wording
Old phrases may no longer be suitable. Landlords should review standard advert templates.
2. Using blanket bans
Automatic refusals are risky, especially for families, benefit recipients and pet requests.
3. Confusing affordability with benefit status
The issue is whether the rent is affordable, not whether income includes benefits.
4. Refusing pets without considering the facts
Pet requests should be reviewed individually.
5. Ignoring assistance animals
Assistance animals may raise equality issues and should be treated carefully.
6. Letting the agent decide everything
The landlord should understand and approve the process being used.
Practical checklist for landlords
Landlords should:
- remove “no DSS” and similar wording;
- avoid blanket bans on children;
- review “professionals only” adverts;
- assess affordability consistently;
- consider pet requests individually;
- record reasons for refusing a pet;
- check leasehold and insurance restrictions;
- treat assistance animals carefully;
- keep records of applicant decisions;
- review agent advertising and referencing processes;
- focus on property suitability, not personal preference.
The key takeaway
The Renters’ Rights Act does not stop landlords from making careful decisions about who rents their property.
But it does change how those decisions should be made.
Landlords should avoid blanket exclusions and focus on fair, consistent and evidence-based decision-making.
Pets, families and benefits are now areas where casual wording or automatic refusals can create real risk.
In the new rental landscape, the safest approach is simple: assess the facts, record the reason and treat applicants consistently.
NetRent does not provide legal advice. This article represents our understanding of rental property law at the time of writing.
Telephone: 01352 721300
Email: support@netrent.co.uk