There’s no such thing as a perfect tenant, and searching for one is a genuinely unhelpful way to approach applicant selection. What exists instead is a set of evidence — referencing, affordability, references, circumstances — that helps you make a reasonable, consistent, lawful judgement about risk. Understanding what that evidence can and can’t actually tell you is the real skill here, more than any instinct about who “seems reliable.”
What referencing actually establishes, and what it doesn’t
A standard reference check typically covers identity verification, income and employment or other financial evidence, a credit check, and — where available — a previous landlord reference.
Passing all of this tells you something genuinely useful: that the information supplied has been checked against the criteria being used, that income appears to support the rent under that assessment, and that no issue significant enough to fail the reference has emerged from the checks carried out.
It doesn’t tell you they’ll definitely pay on time every month for the next two years, that they’ll look after the property perfectly, or that no dispute will ever arise. Referencing manages risk; it doesn’t eliminate it.
The reverse matters just as much. A failed automated affordability score isn’t automatically proof that someone would be an unsuitable tenant. Referencing providers commonly apply their own income thresholds or formulas, but these vary and are not statutory rules.
Someone who fails one provider’s threshold might still have relevant evidence worth considering — savings, other legitimate income or a guarantor where your consistently applied criteria genuinely require one.
Affordability: think evidence, not formula
Combined household income, savings, guarantors and benefit income can all legitimately factor into an affordability assessment — the goal is a genuine, evidence-based view of whether someone can sustain the rent, not adherence to a single universal formula.
A landlord can still set a genuine affordability threshold. What matters is applying it consistently and treating relevant income fairly.
Since 1 May 2026, benefit income cannot simply be disregarded because of its source. The government’s rental-discrimination guidance for landlords explains the current rules.
Self-employed applicants and those with irregular income may need a different evidence set — accounts, tax information or other appropriate records rather than standard payslips.
A guarantor can also be a legitimate risk-control tool, but the trigger should be an objectively applied criterion rather than simply the fact that the applicant receives benefits. Requiring a guarantor from a benefit claimant who otherwise meets the same criteria as another applicant can itself create a discrimination problem.
What changed in 2026, and what it actually means for you
Since 1 May 2026, it’s unlawful in England to refuse an applicant, or treat them less favourably, because they receive benefits or have children, subject to the limited statutory exceptions that can apply in particular circumstances.
This covers direct refusal and indirect practices such as ignoring benefit income entirely or using criteria that are really designed to exclude benefit recipients or families.
This isn’t a minor tweak to good practice; it’s a legal requirement with real enforcement behind it, including civil penalties of up to £7,000 per offence.
It’s worth being precise about what this does and doesn’t change.
It doesn’t mean you have to accept every applicant regardless of genuine ability to pay. A lawful affordability assessment, applied consistently and taking benefit income properly into account, remains entirely legitimate.
What it prohibits is treating receipt of benefits, or having children, as the reason for exclusion in itself.
Beyond these newer protections, the wider Equality Act 2010 has applied to lettings for considerably longer and protects against discrimination relating to characteristics including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
This isn’t the place for a complete treatment of equality law in lettings, but the principle worth internalising is simple: your selection criteria should relate to the tenancy and genuine risk, not assumptions about who the applicant is.
The Right to Rent check is a compliance step, not a selection criterion
If the property’s in England, relevant adult occupiers need a Right to Rent check before the tenancy starts, regardless of nationality.
The government’s Right to Rent guidance explains the permitted checking routes.
This shouldn’t be used as an informal proxy for excluding applicants on the basis of how “British” they sound or look. The checks should be applied consistently to the relevant adults rather than only to people you assume may have overseas status.
Operationally, the check may be carried out once someone is selected or reaches the appropriate stage of your process; legally, the important point is that it is completed properly before occupation begins.
Build a consistent process, and use it every time
The single most useful thing you can do to select tenants well, and to protect yourself from an accusation of unfair or unlawful treatment, is applying the same evidence-gathering process to every applicant in the same position, regardless of your initial impression of them.
Deciding upfront what you actually need — proof of income, a landlord reference where available, credit check outcome and so on — and applying it consistently removes a great deal of arbitrary decision-making.
A fair seven-step process
| Stage | What to do |
|---|---|
| 1. Set criteria first | Decide the affordability and evidence requirements before comparing people |
| 2. Gather equivalent evidence | Allow appropriate alternatives for self-employed or irregular-income applicants |
| 3. Count income fairly | Include benefit income in the same way as other income |
| 4. Apply referencing consistently | Don’t change the bar according to who has applied |
| 5. Check property constraints | Occupancy, overcrowding and licensing limits |
| 6. Complete Right to Rent correctly | Apply the required checks consistently |
| 7. Record the decision | Keep a short factual reason for the selection |
You don’t need an elaborate scoring bureaucracy. The value is deciding what matters before you know who you prefer.
What to actively avoid are informal scoring systems that quietly rely on proxies rather than the risk you’re genuinely trying to assess.
For instance, length of time in a current job may sometimes provide useful context, but weighting it heavily can disadvantage perfectly sustainable applicants who’ve recently changed employer, become self-employed or moved to the UK.
The useful question is: what risk am I actually trying to measure with this criterion?
When several applicants are all genuinely suitable
Where more than one applicant clears your affordability and reference bar, the decision between them can reasonably take account of objective practical considerations genuinely connected with the tenancy — for example whether their proposed move-in date matches the property’s availability, whether lawful occupancy or licensing limits are satisfied, and whether the application is complete against the criteria you set in advance.
What you should avoid is introducing a subjective preference for one type of household over another once several applicants are otherwise suitable.
Having children, receiving benefits or fitting a landlord’s idea of a more desirable social or employment category should not become the tie-breaker.
Where applicants remain genuinely equal, a neutral rule established in advance — for example proceeding with the first fully completed application that satisfied all of your criteria — is easier to defend than inventing a new preference after you’ve seen who applied.
Since 1 May 2026, inviting or accepting offers above your advertised rent is unlawful in any case. The government’s rental-bidding guidance confirms that even an unsolicited higher offer cannot simply be accepted.
A brief decision note can also help later:
Applicant met affordability requirement; references satisfactory; occupation within permitted limits; requested move-in date matched availability; selected under the stated process.
That is more useful than trying months later to reconstruct why one applicant was chosen over another.
The underlying judgement
Choosing a tenant well isn’t about finding someone flawless. It’s a risk and suitability assessment, built on consistent, evidence-based criteria, applied fairly to everyone who reaches the same stage of the process.
The two aims aren’t in tension. A genuinely rigorous, evidence-based process is naturally also a fairer one, because it’s testing the things that actually matter and discarding the things that don’t.
This article provides general guidance on tenant selection in England as at 9 September 2026 and does not constitute legal advice. For detailed guidance on discrimination law or Right to Rent compliance, see our Tenant Rights and Landlord Duties & Compliance sections respectively.
