Rental discrimination: guidance for Scotland

Examples that are likely to be rental discrimination

Example 1

A landlord does not want to rent their property to someone who receives benefits.

They ask a referencing company to check the person, knowing the company does not include housing support in their affordability calculations. The referencing company rejects the person because they do not meet the affordability threshold.

The person reports this to the police as discrimination.

What would be considered: Landlords can refuse tenants who cannot afford the rent. But in this case, benefits were deliberately treated unequally in the income calculations. This may mean rental discrimination did take place.

Example 2

A landlord rejects someone because they receive the housing element of universal credit. The landlord says their mortgage terms do not allow them to rent to anyone who receives housing support payments.

The person reports this to the police as discrimination.

What would be considered: Under rental discrimination measures, any mortgage terms that would stop or restrict benefits claimants from living in a property have no effect. This may mean rental discrimination did take place.

Example 3

A landlord accepts someone in principle but cannot get rent guarantee insurance from their preferred provider because the person receives housing support.

The insurer requires these tenants to meet a higher income threshold or provide a guarantor, which they cannot do.

The landlord rejects the person, who reports this to the police.

What would be considered: Rent guarantee insurance is not required to grant a tenancy. Rejecting an individual who does not meet the requirements, due to being in receipt of benefits, may mean that rental discrimination took place.

Examples that are likely not to be rental discrimination

Example 1

A landlord runs a small development of homes for retirees. They say children are not allowed to live on the site but may visit. Someone who is guardian to their grandchildren is refused a tenancy and reports this to the police.

What would be considered: The nature of the development is clearly advertised and the restriction provides a genuine benefit to residents. This may mean rental discrimination is not determined to have taken place.

Example 2

A landlord rents studios to students near a university. They do not allow tenants with children. Although self-contained, the studios have shared lounge and laundry facilities. The landlord does not think it is safe for children to use these common areas with strangers. A mature student with children is refused a tenancy and reports this to the police.

What would be considered: The common areas are shared with other students and likely to have a lot of traffic from strangers at all hours. This may not be safe for unsupervised children. This may mean rental discrimination is not determined to have taken place.