One of the most important parts of the Renters’ Rights reforms is also one of the easiest to mishandle operationally.

The Act includes measures targeting rental discrimination, including discrimination against applicants with children or those in receipt of benefits. That means agencies need to think carefully about how properties are marketed, how applications are screened, how affordability is assessed and how staff speak to applicants day to day.

For letting agents, this is not just a legal wording exercise; it is a process issue, a training issue, a quality control issue, and, if handled badly, a reputation issue.

**Why this area makes agencies nervous**

The concern is understandable. Most agencies are not trying to discriminate unlawfully. But many do have inherited habits, templated wording or landlord instructions that have never really been stress-tested against a stricter standard. That is where the pain lies.

Teams often worry about questions like:

* Can we still run affordability checks properly?

* What do we do if a landlord says they do not want tenants on benefits?

* Can we prefer one applicant over another?

* How should negotiators answer applicant questions on the phone?

* What phrases in listings or email templates now create risk?

These are practical concerns, not abstract ones. And in medium-sized agencies, where multiple staff handle enquiries, viewings and applications, inconsistency is the real danger.

*The biggest mistake is treating this as a copy-editing exercise*

Yes, listing language matters.

Yes, templates matter.

Yes, scripts matter.

But agencies that stop there are missing the bigger issue.

Discrimination risk does not only sit in what is written publicly. It also sits in how decisions are made internally.

If an agency removes “No DSS” style language but still applies inconsistent affordability logic, unstructured applicant triage or undocumented filtering decisions, the underlying exposure has not really gone away. That is why this topic needs operational attention, not just wording changes.

Referencing needs to be consistent, not improvised. This is where many agencies can improve quickly.

A strong referencing process should be:

* clearly defined

* consistently applied

* relevant to the tenancy

* documented properly

* explainable if challenged

That does not mean abandoning judgment. It means using judgment inside a defensible framework. For example, if affordability checks are part of your process, they should be based on a consistent method rather than shifting informally depending on who the applicant is, which landlord is involved or how pressured the team feels to get a let over the line. The more subjective and undocumented the process is, the harder it is to defend later. 

Landlord instructions are a major flashpoint. This is where agents often feel stuck. A landlord may express a preference that creates obvious risk, and the negotiator has to handle it without inflaming the relationship or exposing the agency. That requires confidence and policy.

The agencies that handle this well usually do three things:

* they have a clear internal position on unacceptable instructions

* they train staff on how to push back professionally

* they keep decisions and rationale documented

Without that, too much ends up depending on individual confidence in the moment. And that is not a scalable operating model.

Agent scripts matter more than people think

A lot of risk in this area comes from informal spoken language.

A negotiator answers the phone.

A prospective tenant asks whether the landlord will consider applicants with children.

Someone responds too casually.

A note gets added to a file in shorthand.

A preference gets conveyed in a way that sounds “normal” internally but looks bad externally.

That is how problems start.

Agencies should review not only listings and emails, but also how staff are trained to handle:

* applicant screening calls

* viewing follow-up conversations

* landlord briefings

* internal notes

* rejection communications

There is a commercial upside to doing this well

This is not only about avoiding complaints.

Agencies that build fairer, more consistent application processes usually benefit operationally too. They often see cleaner workflows, fewer ambiguous decisions, more confidence among junior staff and less reputational risk when challenged.

It also improves the agency’s ability to explain its value to landlords. A good agent is not just a gatekeeper. They are a professional operator who reduces risk by using consistent process.

That becomes a stronger proposition in a more regulated market.

**What to tighten up now**

The most useful review questions are simple:

* Are our affordability checks documented and consistent?

* Are our listing templates free of risky wording?

* Do staff know how to handle inappropriate landlord instructions?

* Are applicant decisions recorded clearly?

* Could we explain our process if someone challenged it?

If the answer to any of those is “sort of”, that is the place to start.

**Where a platform can help**

This area gets easier when agencies are not relying on memory, loose notes and disconnected communication trails. Centralised records, stored documents, trackable communications and consistent workflows all help reduce variation between staff and make decision-making easier to review later.

That is one of the advantages of using togetha. When tenancy records, documents, communication history and workflow activity are kept in one place, agencies are in a better position to operate consistently and demonstrate that consistency if needed.

**Final thought**

The anti-discrimination changes are not just about what agents must stop doing.

They are about how agencies need to professionalise applicant handling end to end.

The firms that respond well will not just reduce legal risk. They will run cleaner, more defensible and more scalable lettings processes.

If you want a more consistent way to manage tenancy workflows, records and communications, book a demo of togetha today.