Right to Rent Checks and Discrimination: What Landlords Should Change Now

The Right to Rent Rules Are Not Changing in Isolation

The Home Office published a new draft code of practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination when carrying out right to rent checks on 15 April 2026. For landlords and letting agents, the message is straightforward: right to rent checks still need to be done, but they also need to be done in a way that does not drift into unlawful discrimination.

That matters because, in practice, right to rent has always carried a risk of inconsistency. Some landlords check everyone properly. Others only dig deeper when an applicant “seems foreign”, sounds different, has an accent, or cannot produce the document the landlord expects to see first. The new draft code addresses exactly that kind of habit.

The Core Principle Is Consistency

The Home Office draft code says the best way to avoid discrimination is to treat all prospective tenants fairly and consistently. In simple terms, that means your right to rent process should not depend on appearance, nationality assumptions, ethnicity, accent, or how “British” someone seems.

Landlords and agents should not only check people they think are migrants. They should not reject applicants because they do not hold British citizenship. They should not assume that a time-limited right to rent makes someone a weaker applicant. And they should not prefer one valid checking route over another just because it feels more familiar.

What the Draft Code Says Landlords Should Not Do

The draft code gives clear examples of the kind of conduct that creates risk. A landlord should not:

• only carry out checks on applicants they think do not look British
• reject applicants because they are not British citizens
• make assumptions based on colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, accent, or length of time in the UK
• treat people with time-limited permission less favourably once they have shown they have the right to rent
• insist on one type of evidence when another permitted route is available

That last point is more important than many landlords realise. Some applicants will prove their right to rent digitally, others manually, and others through the Landlord Checking Service. The code is clear that landlords must not discriminate based on which route is required.

Digital Checks, Manual Checks and eVisas

One of the practical strengths of the draft code is that it deals with modern checking routes more directly. It says landlords should not treat someone more or less favourably because they use the Home Office online service, because they use an eVisa, or because they provide a manual document route instead.

It also says landlords cannot insist on digital evidence where the applicant cannot use that route and is entitled to prove their status in another approved way. In other words, the process must stay flexible enough to follow the law, not the landlord’s personal preference.

Time-Limited Permission Does Not Mean Second-Class Treatment

The draft code is also explicit that prospective tenants with a time-limited right to rent must not be treated less favourably once they have shown the required evidence. A repeat check may be needed later, but that does not justify worse treatment at the point of application.

For landlords, that means a valid right to rent is a valid right to rent. The fact that a check may need repeating later is an administrative issue, not a reason to downgrade the applicant automatically.

What This Means for Letting Practice

The real operational question is not whether landlords should still do right to rent checks. They must. The question is whether the process is designed in a way that can be defended if challenged.

A safer approach looks like this:

• ask all prospective adult tenants to complete the right to rent step at the same stage
• use the same written explanation for everyone
• accept any lawful checking route, whether digital, manual or via the Landlord Checking Service
• train staff not to make assumptions based on appearance or accent
• keep a short file note if extra time or extra checks were genuinely needed

This is as much about consistency and training as it is about compliance paperwork.

Our View

This draft code is a useful reminder that landlords can create risk without meaning to. The weak point is often not the check itself, but the inconsistent way the check is introduced, explained or escalated.

If your current process depends too much on instinct, habit or staff judgement in the moment, it is worth tightening it before October. A simple standardised workflow is easier to operate and much easier to defend.

This article is for general information only and reflects government material reviewed on 28 April 2026. It is not legal advice.