There is a habit in this trade that just became a legal risk. "No DSS." "Professionals only." "Sorry, no children." For years those lines sat quietly in adverts and in the back of landlords' minds. Under the Renters' Rights Act, using them can now land you a fine.
Here is the plain version. It is unlawful to refuse a tenant, or to offer them worse terms, simply because they receive benefits or because they have children. That covers the obvious refusal, but it also covers the advert that says "no DSS", the agent who quietly filters out families, and the "professionals only" line that means the same thing. The rule reaches the wording, not just the decision.
I want to be clear, because this is where landlords panic. It does not mean you have to take everyone, and it does not mean you cannot check anyone. You are still completely entitled to run a proper reference. You can look at affordability, at income against the rent, at credit history, at previous landlord references, and you can ask for a guarantor. What you cannot do is use "on benefits" or "has children" as the reason, or as a blanket filter that keeps those tenants out before you have even looked.
So here is how I choose a tenant now, and how I would suggest you do too.
Strip the banned lines out of everything. Your adverts, your agent's script, your enquiry replies. No "DSS", no "no children", no "professionals only". If your letting agent still uses them, that is your liability, so tell them to stop.
Assess on affordability, not label. Set a clear, consistent rule, for example rent should sit at or below a sensible share of provable income, and apply it to everyone the same way. Benefits count as income.
Use referencing and guarantors, not assumptions. A guarantor who passes referencing does more for you than any blanket rule ever did, and it is completely allowed.
Keep your reasons on record. If you turn someone down, be able to show it was affordability or references, not who they are. A short, honest note on file is your protection.
Judge each applicant on their own merits. A working family on housing support can be a far better tenant than a higher earner with a shaky history. The law is just asking you to actually look.
From my own portfolio: I stopped thinking in labels a while ago, because the labels were never good predictors anyway. Some of my steadiest tenancies are people the old "no DSS" reflex would have binned on sight. My rule now is simple: same questions for everyone, decision on the numbers and the references, reason written down. It is fairer, it is lawful, and honestly it has found me better tenants than the lazy filter ever did.
The temptation is to keep the old filter running quietly and hope nobody notices. I would not. Enforcement sits with the council, the fines are real, and all it takes is one rejected applicant who knows the new rules. A clean, consistent process costs you nothing and takes the risk off the table.
The takeaway: you cannot refuse a tenant for being on benefits or having children, and you cannot say it in your advert either. But you can still reference hard, check affordability, and ask for a guarantor. Same questions for everyone, decide on the numbers, write down your reason. Do that and you are both safe and better off.
If you know a landlord still running "no DSS" on their adverts, tell them. That line is a fine waiting to happen now.