Choosing between tenants is one of the most important decisions a landlord makes.
It is also becoming one of the areas where landlords need to be more careful.
High demand, rental reform, tighter advertising rules, anti-discrimination requirements and greater scrutiny of landlord decisions all mean that informal selection methods are increasingly risky.
The key message is simple: landlords can choose between applicants, but the decision should be fair, consistent and based on relevant evidence.
Why tenant selection matters
A landlord wants a tenant who can pay the rent, look after the property and comply with the tenancy.
That is a reasonable aim.
But the way the landlord reaches that decision matters.
A poor selection process can lead to:
- discrimination complaints;
- unfair treatment claims;
- disputes with applicants;
- agent compliance issues;
- reputational damage;
- poor records;
- difficulty explaining why one applicant was chosen over another.
Landlords should therefore avoid casual, instinctive or inconsistent decision-making.
Landlords can still choose
Nothing in rental reform means landlords must accept the first person who applies.
Landlords can still consider whether an applicant is suitable for the property.
They can still assess:
- affordability;
- references;
- household size;
- tenancy history;
- ability to meet the advertised rent;
- property suitability;
- lawful occupancy limits;
- licence conditions;
- right to rent requirements where applicable;
- guarantor support where appropriate;
- move-in timing;
- evidence supplied by the applicant.
The issue is not whether landlords can choose. They can.
The issue is whether the choice is made fairly and for proper reasons.
Start with clear criteria
Landlords should decide the selection criteria before applications are assessed.
This helps avoid decisions being shaped by assumptions about individual applicants.
Useful criteria may include:
- can the applicant afford the advertised rent?
- has the applicant provided the required information?
- are references satisfactory?
- is the household size suitable for the property?
- does the proposed occupation comply with licensing rules?
- does the proposed use comply with the lease, mortgage and insurance?
- can the tenancy start within the required timeframe?
- does the applicant pass the same checks applied to others?
Criteria should be relevant to the tenancy, not based on personal preference or stereotypes.
Affordability
Affordability is one of the most important factors.
Landlords are entitled to consider whether an applicant can afford the rent.
However, affordability should be assessed consistently.
A landlord should not automatically reject someone because their income includes benefits, pension income, self-employment income, part-time work, maintenance payments or savings.
The question should be whether the applicant can afford the rent and meet the tenancy obligations.
That may involve considering:
- wages or salary;
- benefits;
- pension income;
- self-employment income;
- savings;
- guarantor support;
- household income;
- rent payment history;
- credit information;
- existing financial commitments.
The same affordability standard should be applied to all applicants.
Benefits
Landlords should be especially careful where applicants receive benefits.
The Renters’ Rights Act has strengthened protection against rental discrimination affecting people who receive benefits.
A landlord should not operate a blanket “no benefits” or “No DSS” policy.
That does not mean a landlord must ignore affordability.
It means the applicant should be assessed on their individual circumstances, using the same fair process applied to other applicants.
A benefits applicant who can afford the rent should not be excluded simply because of the source of income.
Families with children
Landlords should also avoid blanket exclusion of families with children.
A landlord may need to consider genuine property factors, such as size, overcrowding, licence conditions, room standards, lease restrictions or safety issues.
But the decision should be based on the property and the household circumstances, not a general dislike of letting to families.
A phrase such as “no children” or “not suitable for children” should be treated with caution.
It is usually better to describe the property facts clearly and assess suitability fairly.
Household size and occupancy limits
Household size is relevant.
A landlord can consider whether the property is suitable for the number of people who want to live there.
This may involve:
- number of bedrooms;
- room sizes;
- HMO rules;
- licence conditions;
- overcrowding rules;
- amenity standards;
- fire safety;
- lease restrictions;
- planning restrictions.
If a household is too large for the property, that may be a valid reason not to proceed.
However, the reason should be recorded clearly and based on property suitability, not assumptions about the type of household.
References
References can help landlords assess risk.
These may include:
- previous landlord references;
- employment references;
- accountant references for self-employed applicants;
- character references where appropriate;
- agent references;
- evidence of previous rent payments.
References should be used fairly.
A landlord should avoid applying stricter reference requirements to one applicant because they receive benefits, have children, are self-employed or do not fit a preferred profile.
Credit checks
Credit checks may be part of the process.
However, landlords should remember that a credit check is only one piece of evidence.
A poor credit history may need to be considered carefully, but it should not automatically end the application without looking at the wider circumstances.
A fair process may consider:
- the seriousness of the issue;
- whether debts are historic;
- whether the applicant has stable current income;
- whether rent has been paid reliably in the past;
- whether a guarantor is available;
- whether the applicant has provided an explanation.
Landlords should be consistent in how they treat credit information.
Guarantors
A guarantor may help where there are affordability or referencing concerns.
However, landlords should avoid using guarantor requirements unfairly.
For example, it may be risky to require a guarantor only because an applicant receives benefits or has children, while not requiring one from other applicants with similar affordability concerns.
The better approach is to have a clear guarantor policy.
For example, a guarantor may be requested where income evidence is below a particular affordability threshold or where referencing identifies a specific risk.
Pets
Tenant pet requests are becoming more important.
Landlords should avoid blanket assumptions about pet owners.
Where pets are relevant, landlords may consider:
- property suitability;
- lease restrictions;
- animal welfare;
- size and type of pet;
- number of pets;
- garden or outdoor access;
- shared accommodation;
- allergies in HMOs;
- insurance conditions;
- potential damage risk;
- reasonable tenancy conditions.
Assistance animals should be treated separately from ordinary pet requests.
Any decision should be recorded.
Timing
Move-in timing can be relevant.
A landlord may prefer an applicant who can move in when the property is available.
However, timing should be applied objectively.
For example, if the property is available from a certain date and one applicant cannot move for two months, that may be a practical factor.
But landlords should avoid using timing as a disguised reason to reject an applicant for an unfair or discriminatory reason.
First come, first served?
Some landlords use a first-come, first-served approach.
That can be simple, but it is not always practical where several applicants enquire at once.
If landlords do use this method, they should define what it means.
For example:
- first to view;
- first to submit a complete application;
- first to pass referencing;
- first to pay a permitted holding deposit;
- first to agree the advertised rent and tenancy terms.
A vague first-come, first-served approach can create disputes.
Scoring applications
Some landlords may prefer a scoring system.
This can help show consistency.
A simple scoring system might consider:
- affordability;
- references;
- household suitability;
- move-in date;
- completeness of application;
- tenancy history;
- guarantor support where needed.
The scoring should be based on lawful and relevant factors.
It should not include criteria that unfairly disadvantage people because they receive benefits, have children or belong to a protected group.
Multiple suitable applicants
Sometimes several applicants are suitable.
In that situation, landlords should not invite a bidding war.
Rental bidding rules mean landlords and agents should not ask for, encourage or accept offers above the advertised rent.
If more than one applicant is suitable, the landlord should choose using fair criteria already identified.
That might include completeness of application, suitability for the property, referencing outcome, move-in date or other relevant factors.
The decision should not be based on who will pay more than the advertised rent.
Rental bidding
The advertised rent should be the rent being sought.
Landlords and agents should not encourage applicants to offer more.
They should avoid phrases such as:
- “best offer”;
- “offers over”;
- “higher offers considered”;
- “make your strongest offer”;
- “another applicant has offered more”;
- “you can improve your chances by increasing the rent.”
If an applicant offers more than the advertised rent, the safest approach is to decline the higher offer and assess them at the advertised rent only.
Avoid assumptions
Tenant selection should not be based on assumptions.
Landlords should avoid assumptions such as:
- people on benefits will not pay;
- families will damage the property;
- self-employed applicants are unreliable;
- younger tenants are risky;
- older tenants are easier;
- professionals are automatically better tenants;
- pet owners always cause damage;
- non-standard income is unacceptable.
Some applicants will be suitable. Some will not.
The decision should be based on evidence, not group labels.
Consistency between applicants
Consistency is crucial.
A landlord should not ask one applicant for far more evidence than another without a clear reason.
For example, landlords should avoid:
- requiring extra proof only from benefit recipients;
- requiring guarantors only from families;
- asking intrusive questions of some applicants but not others;
- accepting weaker evidence from a preferred applicant;
- moving the goalposts during the process;
- rejecting one applicant for an issue ignored in another.
A consistent process is easier to explain and defend.
Agent-managed properties
Where a letting agent handles applications, landlords should still understand the process.
Landlords should ask the agent:
- what criteria are used?
- how is affordability assessed?
- how are benefits treated?
- how are families with children treated?
- how are pets considered?
- how are multiple applicants handled?
- how is rental bidding avoided?
- what records are kept?
- who makes the final decision?
- what reasons are recorded for refusal?
A landlord should not give the agent instructions that encourage discrimination or unfair selection.
Holding deposits
Holding deposits should be handled carefully and in line with the relevant rules.
A holding deposit should not be used to create pressure, take multiple competing payments unfairly or disguise a bidding process.
Landlords and agents should be clear about:
- when a holding deposit is taken;
- what it means;
- whether the property is taken off the market;
- what information the applicant must provide;
- when it may be retained;
- when it must be returned;
- how decisions are recorded.
Clarity reduces complaints.
Data protection
Tenant selection involves personal data.
Landlords and agents may collect income details, bank information, employment data, identity documents, references, credit information and household details.
That information should be handled properly.
Landlords should collect only what is necessary, store it securely, use it for a lawful purpose, keep it only as long as needed and explain how applicant data will be used.
Applicant records are useful, but they must be managed responsibly.
Record-keeping
Landlords should keep enough evidence to explain the selection decision.
This may include:
- the advert;
- applicant enquiries;
- application forms;
- affordability checks;
- reference results;
- viewing notes;
- selection criteria;
- reasons for refusal;
- communication with the agent;
- holding deposit records;
- pet request decisions;
- guarantor requirements;
- licensing or occupancy checks;
- evidence that rental bidding was not used.
Records should be factual and professional.
Avoid subjective notes that could look unfair or discriminatory.
What to tell unsuccessful applicants
Landlords do not need to provide lengthy explanations in every case.
However, if an applicant asks why they were not selected, it helps if the landlord can give a clear, factual reason.
For example:
- another applicant completed referencing first;
- the applicant did not meet affordability criteria;
- references were not satisfactory;
- proposed occupation exceeded licence conditions;
- the applicant could not move within the required timeframe;
- the application was incomplete.
Reasons should be accurate and consistent with the records.
Why this matters under wider reform
The private rented sector is becoming more transparent and more regulated.
Rental discrimination rules, rental bidding restrictions, consumer protection expectations, future Ombudsman arrangements and stronger documentation requirements all point in the same direction.
Landlords should expect tenant selection to come under closer scrutiny.
A fair, evidence-based process is no longer just good practice. It is becoming essential risk management.
Common landlord mistakes
1. Choosing based on instinct
A “gut feeling” can be difficult to explain and may hide unconscious bias.
2. Using blanket exclusions
“No DSS”, “no children” and similar approaches can create risk.
3. Applying different standards
Applicants should be assessed using consistent criteria.
4. Encouraging higher rent offers
Rental bidding is banned.
5. Keeping poor records
If a decision is challenged, records matter.
6. Over-relying on job title
“Professional” is not the same as suitable, affordable or reliable.
7. Letting agents decide without oversight
Landlords should understand the process their agent uses.
Practical checklist for landlords
Landlords should:
- set fair selection criteria before advertising;
- advertise a clear rent;
- avoid rental bidding;
- apply affordability checks consistently;
- assess benefits income fairly;
- avoid blanket exclusions;
- consider families with children fairly;
- check household size and occupancy limits;
- use references consistently;
- document guarantor requirements;
- record pet decisions;
- review agent procedures;
- keep applicant records securely;
- give factual reasons where needed;
- avoid subjective or discriminatory notes.
The key takeaway
Landlords can choose between tenants, but the process needs to be fair, consistent and evidence-based.
The safest approach is to decide the criteria in advance, apply them equally, avoid blanket exclusions, refuse rental bidding and keep clear records.
A good tenant selection process protects the landlord, treats applicants fairly and reduces the risk of complaints.
In the modern private rented sector, choosing a tenant is not just a business decision. It is also a compliance decision.
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