Tenant referencing after Section 21: why front-door vetting matters more

General information only, not legal advice. Landlords and agents with specific situations should seek qualified legal counsel.

When a landlord could serve a Section 21 notice, poor tenant selection was painful but recoverable. A period of notice, a relatively swift court process, and a fresh start. That safety valve closed on 1 May 2026, when the main provisions of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 came into force, abolishing Section 21 and converting existing assured shorthold tenancies in the private rented sector to periodic assured tenancies with no fixed end date.

The consequence is straightforward: the only way to reclaim your property now is through Section 8, which requires a valid statutory ground, the correct notice, and — if contested — a court hearing. That is not a criticism of the new law; it is simply the landscape every landlord and letting agent in England now has to plan around. And it means the decision you make at the front door — who moves in — carries weight it never quite did before.

Why Section 8 is not a simple substitute

Section 8 existed before the Act, but the reformed grounds for possession that took effect on 1 May 2026 change how it works in practice.

The most significant change concerns rent arrears. Previously, Ground 8 (the mandatory ground for arrears) could be relied on once a tenant owed two months’ rent, with a two-week notice period. Under the Act, that threshold has risen to three months’ arrears (or 13 weeks where rent is paid weekly or fortnightly), and the notice period has been extended to four weeks. There is an added wrinkle: any housing element of Universal Credit that is unpaid only because the tenant has not yet received the award is disregarded when calculating arrears. The change gives tenants more room to recover — a reasonable policy aim — but it also means a landlord cannot act on Ground 8 until a problem is already fairly deep.

Now combine that threshold with court timelines. The most recent Ministry of Justice figures at the time of writing (April to June 2024) put the median time for landlord possession claims at 8.1 weeks from claim to possession order, 14.1 weeks from claim to warrant, and 25.4 weeks from claim to repossession — roughly six months end to end, even in cases that proceed without serious complication. Contested cases or those caught in court backlogs can take considerably longer.

For a landlord with a property at, say, £1,200 per month, three months’ arrears means £3,600 owed before Ground 8 is even available. Add court and enforcement timescales and the arithmetic becomes uncomfortable quickly. Thorough referencing before move-in is not a bureaucratic nicety — it is the primary mechanism for not ending up in that position.

What thorough referencing actually means

The basics are well established but worth restating, because consistency is where many landlords and agents fall short.

Credit and financial history. A credit check flags County Court Judgments, defaults and historic arrears. Affordability checks commonly apply an industry guide of annual income at least 2.5 to 3 times the annual rent — a guide, not a legal requirement — though a rigid multiplier applied without nuance can create both legal and practical problems (more below). Savings, guarantors and rental history should inform the full picture.

Employment and income verification. Payslips and an employer reference for employees; two to three years of accounts or an accountant’s reference for the self-employed. The self-employed are not inherently higher risk — they simply require different documentation.

Tenancy history and landlord references. A reference from a previous landlord (ideally two) establishes whether rent was paid on time, the property maintained, and whether there were complaints. Be aware that glowing references from private landlords who simply want a tenant to move on can be inflated; a brief phone call often catches nuance a form does not.

Right to Rent checks. These remain a legal requirement in England and are separate from referencing, though they should sit alongside it. Since February 2024, failure to check carries civil penalties of up to £10,000 per occupier for a first breach (£5,000 per lodger), rising to £20,000 per occupier for a repeat breach (£10,000 per lodger).

Guarantors. Where income does not comfortably meet the threshold, a guarantor can bridge the gap — but apply the same rigour to the guarantor. A guarantor with their own affordability problems offers limited protection.

A consistent, documented process like PropertyGoose’s referencing checks removes the subjective inconsistency that creates both poor tenancy outcomes and legal exposure.

The discrimination trap: consistency is not optional

The Renters’ Rights Act introduces specific, enforceable protections against discriminatory letting practices. Since 1 May 2026, landlords and agents in England cannot refuse a tenancy — or steer an applicant towards a process that effectively filters them out — on the basis that the prospective tenant:

• Receives benefits (including Universal Credit, Housing Benefit or other state income)
• Has children

The key point from government guidance is not merely that “No DSS” adverts are prohibited (they were already problematic under equality law). The Act goes further: GOV.UK guidance gives the explicit example that a referencing request which ignores benefit income for affordability is itself discrimination, because benefit income has been treated unequally — even if the landlord did not expressly instruct the service to discriminate. The instruction to count all income equally must be deliberate.

On penalties, the discrimination provisions sit on the lower civil rung. A breach can attract a civil penalty of up to £7,000, with a further penalty of up to £7,000 for a continuing breach (conduct persisting more than 28 days after a final notice) or a repeat breach within five years. There is a limited exception allowing restrictions on child occupancy where a landlord can show it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — for example, to avoid overcrowding; no equivalent exception exists for benefit status.

The practical implication: affordability thresholds remain lawful, but only if applied consistently to all income types. Set the threshold, document it, apply it the same way to every applicant, and make sure any referencing partner treats benefit income and employment income equally.

This is where ad hoc, informal practices carry disproportionate risk. If you have not applied the same criteria consistently, you cannot easily demonstrate that a refusal was based on affordability rather than income source.

Record-keeping: your paper trail is your defence

In a world where possession requires proving a ground in court, and where letting decisions can be challenged on discrimination grounds, documentation is not optional.

Keep records of:

• The criteria applied to every applicant (with dates)
• Every check carried out and its outcome
• Any supporting documentation provided
• The reason for any refusal, in writing, based on the evidenced criteria

If a decision is challenged — by an unsuccessful applicant, a local council or a court — clear records are the difference between a defensible position and an exposed one.

Agents: this applies to you too

Letting agents are squarely within the Act’s anti-discrimination provisions, which apply to anyone acting directly or indirectly on a landlord’s behalf. Where an agent carries out referencing for a landlord, both need confidence that the checks are non-discriminatory and consistent. In practice that means auditable processes that explicitly apply equal treatment to all income sources. PropertyGoose’s agent referencing platform is built for exactly this — consistent, documented checks at a fixed cost, with a typical turnaround of around 48 hours. See current pricing here.

The front door is the risk control now

The Renters’ Rights Act represents a genuine shift in how tenancy risk is managed — not because it makes possession impossible, but because it makes poor tenant selection significantly more expensive and time-consuming to correct. The legislation’s intent is to improve security for renters; landlords and agents who respond by improving the quality of their upfront vetting will find they need to reach for Section 8 far less often.

Rigorous, consistent, lawful referencing was always good practice. It is now the primary mechanism for managing tenancy risk in a market without no-fault eviction.

If you want to understand what a thorough referencing process looks like in practice — or compare what is included at different price points — our pricing page and product comparison cover the detail. Or book a call to talk through the specifics for your portfolio or agency.

---

Author: Craig Ryder. This article reflects the legal position as of June 2026. It is general information only and does not constitute legal advice.