Rental adverts need to attract the right tenant.
But the words landlords use can also create risk.
Phrases that may once have appeared common in property adverts can now cause serious problems. Wording such as “No DSS”, “professionals only”, “no children” or “working tenants only” may seem like shorthand, but it can discourage or exclude people in a way that may be unlawful or unfair.
The key message is simple: landlords should describe the property and assess applicants fairly, rather than using blanket phrases that exclude whole groups of people.
Why wording matters
A rental advert is not just marketing.
It is part of the letting process. It can affect who applies, who feels welcome to apply and who is effectively shut out before they have had the chance to be assessed.
An advert that uses exclusionary wording can lead to:
- tenant complaints;
- discrimination claims;
- local authority interest;
- reputational damage;
- agent compliance issues;
- portal rejection;
- fewer suitable applicants;
- evidence of unfair selection practices.
Landlords should therefore be careful not only about what they intend, but also about how the advert may be understood by prospective tenants.
“No DSS”
“No DSS” is one of the clearest examples of risky wording.
The phrase is outdated, but it is still sometimes used to mean that tenants receiving housing benefit or Universal Credit housing support will not be considered.
Blanket bans on benefit recipients can create discrimination risk.
Many people receive benefits for different reasons, including disability, caring responsibilities, low income, family circumstances or temporary changes in work. Excluding everyone in that position may disproportionately affect protected groups.
Landlords should not reject an applicant simply because they receive benefits.
Instead, they should assess whether the tenancy is affordable and whether the applicant can meet the rent.
Benefits and affordability
It is legitimate for landlords to consider affordability.
Landlords do not have to accept a tenant who clearly cannot afford the rent.
But affordability should be assessed fairly and individually.
That may involve looking at:
- income;
- benefits;
- savings;
- employment;
- pension income;
- guarantor support;
- rent affordability;
- payment history;
- referencing information;
- the full household circumstances.
The issue is not whether the tenant receives benefits. The issue is whether the tenancy is affordable and sustainable.
A landlord who automatically rejects benefit recipients may be in a much weaker position than one who applies the same affordability test to all applicants.
“Professionals only”
“Professionals only” is another phrase landlords should treat carefully.
It is often used as shorthand for “we want reliable tenants”, but it can be vague and exclusionary.
It may discourage applications from:
- retired people;
- carers;
- disabled applicants;
- students;
- self-employed people;
- people on benefits;
- people between jobs;
- people in lower-paid work;
- families;
- people with non-traditional income.
A landlord’s real concern is usually not whether someone has a professional job title. It is whether they can afford the rent, look after the property and comply with the tenancy.
It is better to focus on the practical criteria rather than using vague social labels.
“Working tenants only”
“Working tenants only” can create similar problems.
It may appear to be a simple affordability filter, but it excludes people who may have lawful and reliable sources of income.
For example, a person may be able to afford the rent through:
- pension income;
- disability benefits;
- Universal Credit;
- savings;
- maintenance payments;
- investment income;
- guarantor support;
- self-employment;
- part-time work;
- combined household income.
A blanket “working tenants only” approach can be unfair and risky.
Landlords should instead ask whether the applicant can meet the rent and pass the same referencing process as other applicants.
“No children”
The Renters’ Rights Act has brought particular focus to discrimination against families with children.
Landlords should avoid blanket “no children” wording.
Children may affect how a property is used, but landlords should not automatically exclude families.
There may be genuine property-specific issues in some cases, such as overcrowding, room size, licence limits, lease restrictions or safety concerns. However, those should be considered properly and individually.
A blanket refusal is risky.
A better approach is to describe the property accurately and assess whether it is suitable for the household.
“Not suitable for children”
This phrase can also be risky.
Sometimes a landlord may have a genuine concern, for example about layout, steep stairs, shared accommodation, lack of space or safety. But “not suitable for children” can easily sound like an exclusion rather than a factual property description.
If there are genuine safety or suitability issues, landlords should explain the property facts rather than exclude children as a category.
For example, instead of saying “not suitable for children”, the advert might state factual information such as:
- “third-floor flat with no lift”;
- “open staircase”;
- “one-bedroom property”;
- “shared accommodation”;
- “maximum occupancy applies”;
- “no private outdoor space”.
The decision should be based on suitability, safety, occupation limits and affordability, not blanket assumptions.
“No families”
“No families” is another phrase to avoid.
It can discourage applicants with children and may create discrimination risk.
Landlords should be cautious about any wording that suggests a family household is automatically unwelcome.
If the property has limited space, that should be described accurately.
If the property is licensed for a maximum number of occupiers, that should be made clear.
The advert should focus on the property’s features and lawful limits, not on excluding families.
“Single person only”
There may be situations where a property is genuinely suitable for only one occupier, for example because of size, facilities, licence conditions or room standards.
However, landlords should use care.
If there is a lawful maximum occupancy limit, it should be described clearly and factually.
The phrase “single person only” may be acceptable in some specific contexts, but it should not be used casually as a way of excluding couples, families or certain groups without proper justification.
Where possible, explain the factual reason.
“No pets”
Pet wording is also becoming more sensitive.
Landlords may still have legitimate concerns about pets, especially where there are lease restrictions, property suitability issues, allergies in shared accommodation or animal welfare concerns.
However, a blanket “no pets” approach may become increasingly difficult as rental reform develops.
A better approach may be to say that pets are considered on request, subject to property suitability, lease restrictions, insurance requirements and reasonable conditions.
Landlords should also remember that assistance animals raise separate issues and should not be treated as ordinary pets.
Mortgage, insurance and lease restrictions
Some landlords use exclusionary wording because they believe they are restricted by a mortgage, insurance policy or lease.
These restrictions should not be ignored, but they should be checked carefully.
Landlords should ask:
- does the restriction actually exist?
- what does it say?
- does it apply to the applicant or the property use?
- is it lawful?
- can consent be requested?
- is there an alternative insurer or lender?
- does the lease impose a genuine limit?
- is the wording being used wider than the restriction requires?
Landlords should not use a vague restriction as a reason to exclude whole groups unless the position has been properly checked.
Tenant selection should be evidence-based
Landlords are entitled to choose between applicants.
They are not required to accept the first person who applies.
However, selection should be based on fair, relevant and consistent factors.
These may include:
- affordability;
- references;
- right to rent checks where applicable;
- ability to pay the rent;
- suitability for the property;
- household size;
- licence restrictions;
- property occupancy limits;
- tenancy history;
- evidence provided by the applicant;
- guarantor availability where appropriate.
Landlords should avoid criteria based on assumptions about a group.
Referencing
Referencing should be applied consistently.
If a landlord asks one applicant for certain information, they should think carefully before applying a different standard to another applicant without good reason.
Referencing may consider:
- income;
- employment;
- benefits;
- credit history;
- previous landlord references;
- affordability;
- guarantor support;
- identity checks;
- right to rent checks where required.
The key point is consistency.
A landlord should not allow the referencing process to become a disguised way of rejecting applicants because they receive benefits, have children or do not fit a preferred social profile.
Advertising through agents
If a letting agent writes the advert, landlords should still check it.
The landlord may provide instructions or criteria that shape the wording.
If the landlord tells the agent “no benefits”, “professionals only” or “no children”, that may create risk even if the agent publishes the advert.
Landlords should ask agents to use compliant wording and to explain how applicants will be assessed.
The advert should reflect fair criteria.
Advertising directly
Landlords who advertise directly should be especially careful.
Without an agent, the landlord controls the wording and applicant selection.
Direct adverts should avoid shorthand phrases that could exclude or discourage applicants unlawfully.
A landlord may think a phrase is harmless because “everyone knows what it means”. That is exactly the problem.
If the meaning is exclusionary, the phrase should not be used.
Better wording for adverts
Instead of using blanket exclusions, landlords should focus on factual property information and fair assessment criteria.
For example, adverts might say:
- “Applicants will be assessed based on affordability and references.”
- “Maximum occupancy applies.”
- “Pets considered subject to property suitability and lease restrictions.”
- “Applicants must be able to demonstrate affordability.”
- “Guarantor may be considered where appropriate.”
- “Property is a one-bedroom flat.”
- “No lift access.”
- “Shared facilities.”
- “Licence conditions limit occupancy.”
This type of wording is clearer, more factual and less likely to discourage applicants unfairly.
Record-keeping
Landlords should keep records of tenant selection decisions.
This may include:
- the advert wording;
- applicant enquiries;
- affordability assessments;
- references;
- reasons for refusal;
- property suitability factors;
- licence restrictions;
- lease restrictions;
- insurance or mortgage evidence;
- agent communications;
- pet request decisions;
- correspondence with applicants.
Good records can help show that decisions were made fairly.
Poor records can make it harder to respond to complaints.
Why this matters under wider rental reform
The direction of travel in the private rented sector is clear.
Landlords will be expected to be more transparent, more consistent and more evidence-based.
The Renters’ Rights Act, rental discrimination rules, future Ombudsman arrangements, consumer protection expectations and increased local authority enforcement all point towards closer scrutiny of advertising and tenant selection.
Informal phrases and old habits can create modern compliance risk.
Common landlord mistakes
1. Using “No DSS”
This can create serious discrimination risk and should be avoided.
2. Saying “professionals only”
This is vague and can discourage suitable applicants unfairly.
3. Automatically excluding families
Families with children should not be rejected through blanket wording.
4. Treating benefits as automatic failure
Affordability should be assessed individually.
5. Copying old advert templates
Old wording may no longer be safe.
6. Letting agents publish unchecked adverts
Landlords should review advert wording.
7. Failing to record decisions
Clear records can help show fair assessment.
Practical checklist for landlords
Before publishing an advert, landlords should check:
- does the wording exclude benefits applicants?
- does it exclude families or children?
- does it use “professionals only”?
- does it use “working tenants only”?
- does it explain property facts clearly?
- are affordability criteria fair?
- are any restrictions genuine and evidenced?
- are pets handled carefully?
- are maximum occupancy limits clear?
- are licence or lease restrictions checked?
- has the agent used suitable wording?
- are selection decisions being recorded?
The key takeaway
Landlords should avoid phrases such as “No DSS”, “professionals only”, “working tenants only”, “no children” and “no families”.
These phrases may seem familiar, but they can discourage or exclude applicants unfairly.
The safer approach is to describe the property accurately, apply fair affordability checks, assess each applicant individually and keep clear records.
In the modern rental market, wording matters.
An advert should help prospective tenants understand the property, not shut people out before they have even had a fair chance to apply.
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