The question keeps coming up in landlord groups, and it comes from a real place. Since Section 21 was abolished on 1 May 2026, choosing the wrong tenant is far more expensive than it used to be. There is no longer a no-fault route out. If a tenancy goes badly, you are relying on Section 8 grounds, a court hearing and months of process.
So landlords are looking for better ways to assess applicants — and some have landed on asking to see how the applicant keeps their current home, either by visiting or by video call.
It sounds reasonable. Legally, it is a great deal riskier than it looks.
Is it actually illegal?
No — and it is worth being precise about this, because plenty of online commentary overstates it.
There is no provision in the Renters’ Rights Act, the Housing Act or anywhere else that says “a landlord must not inspect a prospective tenant’s current home.” Nobody is committing a specific offence by asking.
The risk is not that the request itself is unlawful. The risk is what happens when you act on the result — and who gets filtered out along the way.
What the Renters’ Rights Act actually says about selecting tenants
The Act’s rental discrimination provisions, in force since 1 May 2026, target two things in the letting process: discriminating against people who receive benefits, and discriminating against people who have children. Blanket “no DSS” and “no children” policies are unlawful.
Government guidance is clear that landlords should set the same requirements for every prospective tenant. Where an applicant complains to their local authority, the authority will consider whether a particular requirement was imposed because the person has children or receives benefits.
Now apply that to a home inspection. Ask yourself honestly who is most likely to fail a tidiness assessment:
- Households with young children — toys, mess, wear on carpets
- People currently in poor-quality accommodation, which correlates strongly with low income and benefits receipt
- Larger or overcrowded households
- People in the middle of moving, decorating or dealing with a repair their own landlord has not fixed
The requirement looks neutral. Its effect is not. That gap between neutral rule and unequal outcome is precisely what indirect discrimination means.
The Equality Act is the bigger exposure
The Renters’ Rights Act covers benefits and children. The Equality Act 2010 covers considerably more, and this is where a home inspection creates the most serious problem.
“How well someone keeps their home” is an unusually subjective judgement, and it correlates with several protected characteristics:
- Disability. Mobility impairments, chronic pain, fatigue conditions, depression, ADHD and hoarding disorder all affect how a home looks. Rejecting someone on that basis is direct or indirect disability discrimination, and disability carries a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
- Pregnancy and maternity. A heavily pregnant applicant or one with a newborn is unlikely to have a show home.
- Race and religion. Cultural differences in how homes are used, multi-generational living and household size can all be read — wrongly — as poor care.
- Age. Older applicants with mobility limitations, younger applicants in shared or transient housing.
A disabled applicant refused after a home visit has a straightforward claim. You would be asked to justify the requirement as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — and that is a hard argument when a previous landlord reference was available and would have told you the same thing.
Where it tips from awkward to dangerous
There is a meaningful legal difference between these two positions:
- “We would welcome a video call if you are happy to, but it is entirely optional.” Defensible. Voluntary, no consequence for declining.
- “If they say no, that is the end of their application.” This is the version most commonly suggested — and it is the dangerous one.
The moment refusal triggers automatic rejection, the request becomes a condition of letting. Every applicant who cannot or will not comply is screened out, and the groups least able to comply are disproportionately those with protected characteristics.
That is when a practice stops being an eccentric request and becomes a discriminatory selection criterion.
The data protection problem
Viewing or filming someone’s home means processing personal data, and potentially data about their household, their health and their family.
Under UK GDPR, collection must be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose. Data minimisation means collecting the least you need, not the most you can get.
The difficulty is obvious: a previous landlord reference achieves the same purpose with far less intrusion. When a less invasive route exists and works, the more invasive one is hard to defend as necessary.
Practical consequences worth knowing:
- Recording video or taking photos creates data you must store securely, justify holding and delete when no longer needed
- The applicant can make a subject access request and require you to produce it
- If you reject them, you must be able to explain the decision and evidence it
- Unsuccessful applicants’ data must be deleted — you have no lawful basis to keep footage of a stranger’s home indefinitely
The applicant may not be able to say yes
This is the practical flaw that rarely gets mentioned.
Your applicant is somebody else’s tenant. Their tenancy agreement is with their current landlord, who has their own rights over that property. Inviting a prospective landlord in to inspect and potentially film may breach their agreement, and would certainly be viewed poorly by most landlords if they found out.
You are effectively asking someone to put their existing home at risk in order to apply for yours. A reasonable applicant may refuse for entirely sensible reasons that have nothing to do with how they live.
There is also a personal safety dimension. Asking a stranger — often a lone applicant — to admit an unknown person to their home, or to film inside it, is a request many people will decline on instinct. Women applying alone in particular may have very good reasons to say no.
Does it even work?
Set the law aside for a moment and ask whether the method is any good.
A pre-arranged visit shows you a home that has been tidied for a pre-arranged visit. Anyone can clean for an hour. What you are measuring is willingness to comply and an afternoon of effort — not two years of behaviour.
It also tells you nothing about the things that actually cost landlords money:
- Whether they pay rent on time
- Whether they report maintenance issues early or let them escalate
- Whether they communicate when something goes wrong
- Whether they stayed the full term of previous tenancies
Property damage is a real cost, but it is far less common than arrears — and arrears is what referencing is built to predict.
What to do instead
The underlying concern is legitimate. Here is how to address it without the exposure.
- Get a proper previous landlord reference. Not a tick-box form — phone them. Ask specific questions: was the property returned in good condition, were there deposit deductions, did they report issues promptly, would you let to them again? This is the tool designed for exactly this purpose.
- Verify the referee is genuinely the landlord. Check Land Registry ownership rather than accepting a mobile number from the applicant. Fake references from friends are common.
- Ask about deposit history directly. “Was your deposit returned in full? If not, what was deducted and why?” The answer, and how comfortably they give it, tells you a great deal.
- Run a full credit and affordability check with a written, consistent income threshold applied to everyone.
- Consider a guarantor where referencing is thin rather than rejecting outright.
- Invest in your inventory. A detailed, photographed, dated inventory at check-in is what actually protects you financially. With no pet deposit available and deposits capped, documentation is your real defence.
- Schedule periodic inspections during the tenancy, with proper notice. Problems caught at month three cost far less than problems found at month twenty-four.
Points one and six do the work people are hoping an inspection will do, and neither exposes you to a discrimination claim.
If you have been asked as a tenant
You are entitled to decline, and declining is not evidence of anything.
A reasonable response: “I’m not able to offer access to my current home, as that would affect my existing tenancy. I’m happy to provide a landlord reference, full referencing and proof of my deposit being returned.”
If you believe you were rejected because of a protected characteristic — a disability affecting your home, or because you have children — you can raise it with the landlord in writing, report it to your local authority, or seek advice from Shelter or Citizens Advice. Keep copies of the communications.
Frequently asked questions
Can I ask if the tenant volunteers?
If it is genuinely optional, with no consequence for declining and no record kept of who refused, the risk is much lower. But be honest with yourself about whether it is truly optional. If refusal quietly influences your decision, it is a condition in all but name.
What about a video call rather than a visit?
A video call is less intrusive physically but raises the same discrimination issues, and adds a recording risk if you keep footage. It does not change the legal analysis.
Letting agents do viewings — why is this different?
An agent viewing a property they manage, with notice, is a contractual right over a property the landlord owns. Inspecting a third party’s home, over which you have no rights, to judge them as an applicant, is a different thing entirely.
Can I ask for photos instead?
Same analysis, plus you are now holding images of someone’s home with all the storage, retention and deletion obligations that brings. Photos are also trivially easy to fake.
What if I only ask some applicants?
Worse, not better. Selective application makes it far easier to show the requirement was triggered by a protected characteristic. Inconsistency is what turns a defensible process into an indefensible one.
What are the consequences if I get this wrong?
Local authorities can investigate and issue financial penalties under the Renters’ Rights Act discrimination provisions. An Equality Act claim runs through the county court and can result in damages including for injury to feelings. Data protection complaints go to the ICO. None of these are theoretical.
- No law specifically bans asking — but that is not the same as it being safe
- Making it a condition is where the real risk starts
- Equality Act 2010 is the biggest exposure — disability, pregnancy, race, age
- Renters’ Rights Act discrimination rules cover benefits and children
- UK GDPR requires collection to be necessary and proportionate
- Applicants may be unable to consent under their own tenancy
- A previous landlord reference does the same job lawfully
The bottom line
The instinct is understandable. With Section 21 gone, tenant selection carries more weight than it ever has, and landlords are right to take it seriously.
But this particular method is intrusive, unreliable, difficult to justify under data protection law, and creates discrimination exposure that a phone call to a previous landlord does not. It is a lot of legal risk for information you can obtain more accurately by other means.
Do the referencing properly, document the property thoroughly at check-in, and inspect during the tenancy rather than before it.
Related guides
- Tenant referencing: checks, red flags and Right to Rent
- Company lets for landlords 2026
- Landlord compliance deadlines 2026–2030
- Tenant fraud could cost landlords £4.1bn a year
- Do landlords need to review guarantor agreements?
RentalReadyUK produces plain-English compliance guides for private landlords in England, written against primary sources including GOV.UK and legislation.gov.uk. This article is general information and not legal advice. Discrimination claims are fact-specific — if you are unsure whether your selection process is lawful, take advice before applying it.