How to screen a tenant against the UK Sanctions List

This is the mechanical part of the job: taking a name off a tenancy application and turning it into a screening result you would be happy to explain to an inspector. It applies equally to a landlord and a guarantor — the method does not change with the role, only the reason you are screening. If you want the duty rather than the method, start with UK sanctions checks for letting agents.

Last reviewed August 2026.

Step 1 — collect the identifiers before you search

Three fields do almost all the work:

• Full name, as printed on the identity document. Not the shortened form on the application, not the name on the bank transfer.
• Date of birth. Even a partial date helps. This is the single most effective way to rule a designation out.
• Nationality. Second most effective, and often the field that explains why a near-identical name is irrelevant.

Record the tenancy role at the same time — tenant, landlord or guarantor. It matters later: an inspector reading your file wants to see that you screened everyone in the money flow, and role is what makes a gap visible.

Step 2 — search the name in its variants

Sanctions data is not tidy. Names reach the UK Sanctions List transliterated from Arabic, Cyrillic, Farsi and others, sometimes in several spellings for the same person; family names appear first in some entries and last in others; patronymics and honorifics come and go; and aliases range from formal alternative spellings to low-quality nicknames.

So do not treat an exact-string search as caution. It is a way of manufacturing a clean answer. Screening that works has to allow for:

• Transliteration variants — Yousef, Yusuf, Youssef, Yousif.
• Reversed name order — "Petrov Aleksandr" and "Aleksandr Petrov" are the same search.
• Missing or extra middle names and patronymics.
• Punctuation, hyphens, apostrophes and accents, which should be normalised away rather than allowed to split a name in two.
• Phonetic near-misses — Stephen and Steven, Mohammed and Muhammad.

If you are searching a document spelling and a common spelling that differ, run both. The second search is where the surprises live.

Step 3 — read the result honestly

A screening result should tell you one of three things, and nothing more ambitious:

| Result | What it means | What to do | | --- | --- | --- | | No match | Nothing on the list editions screened resembled the name closely enough to matter | File the evidence; put the subject into ongoing monitoring | | Needs review | Something resembles the name enough that a person has to decide | Compare identifiers against the documents you hold, then record the decision | | Potential match | A designation matches strongly | Stop; treat as a probable designated person until reviewed |

Two things to hold onto. First, "no match" is a statement about the list editions you screened, on the day you screened them — not a clearance with a shelf life. Second, a score is a similarity measurement, not a verdict. A high score against a very common name can be noise, while a moderate score with a matching date of birth and nationality is the one that should worry you.

Step 4 — review possible matches against real documents

For each candidate the list gives you more than a name: usually a date of birth or year, a nationality, a regime, and often a place of birth, passport number or known aliases. Put that beside the identity document in front of you and work through the discriminators in order — date of birth, nationality, place of birth, then name detail. Do not tell the subject you are screening them or why a payment is delayed; tipping off is a separate problem and is covered in reporting a sanctions match to OFSI.

If you cannot resolve it from documents you hold, treat it as unresolved rather than clear. An unresolved match with a note explaining what you could not verify is a defensible position. A dismissal with no reasoning is not.

Step 5 — write the decision down properly

The decision, not just the outcome. A usable note says which identifier ruled the designation out, and against which document:

Reviewed the possible match against the tenant's passport. The designated person's list entry gives a 1968 date of birth and Syrian nationality; the passport shows 1991 and British nationality. Recorded as a false positive on that basis.

That note survives staff turnover and a two-year gap. "Not a match — checked" does not.

Keep the outcome, the list editions screened, the timestamp, the reviewer and the reasoning together, so the whole check can be reconstructed from one place. A certificate that names the exact list editions is the cleanest way to do it, because it fixes the one fact you cannot reconstruct later: what the list said on the day.

Step 6 — put the subject into monitoring

Screening once is a snapshot. Designations are added continuously, so the useful question is not "was this tenant designated in March?" but "is this tenant designated now?". Re-screen saved subjects whenever a list is republished, and make sure a worsening result reaches a human by email rather than sitting in a dashboard nobody opens.

Frequently asked questions

What details do I need before I screen a tenant?

The full name exactly as it appears on the identity document, plus the date of birth and nationality if you hold them, and the role in the tenancy. Name alone is workable but produces far more possible matches to review, because date of birth and nationality are the two fields that most reliably rule a designated person out.

Should I screen the name as written on the passport or as the tenant spells it?

Screen the document spelling, and screen the everyday spelling as well if they differ. Sanctions lists carry transliterations from other scripts, so the list may hold a spelling that matches neither. Good matching tolerates the variants, but two searches cost nothing and the second one is where surprises appear.

What does a match score actually mean?

It is a measure of how closely a designated name resembles the name you searched, adjusted by any date of birth and nationality you supplied. It is a prompt to look, never a conclusion. A high score on a common name may be nothing; a moderate score with a matching date of birth deserves real attention.

How do I record that a possible match was not my tenant?

Write down which identifier ruled the designation out and against which document you compared it — for example that the designated person was born in a different year according to the list entry, checked against the passport on file. A bare note saying "not a match" is not a record of a decision; it is a record that somebody clicked something.

SafeLet screens against the UK Sanctions List, the US OFAC SDN list and the EU consolidated list. It is a screening aid, not legal advice, and it does not cover politically exposed persons or adverse media. Every possible match requires human review, and suspected designated persons must be reported to OFSI.