Challenging unfair student accommodation term

Short answer

Yes. If you are renting student accommodation as an individual for personal use, you are a consumer, and the contract is caught by the unfair terms rules in Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A term that is unfair is simply not binding on you, and you can refuse to comply with it, resist enforcement, or seek to recover money paid under it. Whether a particular clause is actually unfair depends on the wording and the facts, so the important thing is to identify precisely which term you object to and why.

Who this covers

The unfair terms regime applies to a contract between a trader and a consumer. A landlord, university, or private provider letting accommodation in the course of a business is a trader, and a student renting a room or flat to live in is a consumer. This is true whether your agreement is a formal assured shorthold tenancy, a licence for a hall of residence room, or a purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) contract. The Competition and Markets Authority has issued guidance specifically treating student lettings as consumer contracts, and there is separate government guidance on consumer law for higher education providers.

The legal test for an unfair term

Under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. The assessment takes into account the nature of what is being supplied, all the circumstances existing when the term was agreed, and the other terms of the contract.

If a term is unfair, section 62(1) means it is not binding on you, although the rest of the contract usually continues without it. This is a powerful protection: you do not have to persuade a court to cancel the whole agreement, only to disapply the offending clause.

There are two important refinements. First, under section 64, the assessment of fairness does not normally extend to the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided those terms are transparent and prominent. So you generally cannot argue that the rent itself is simply too high. Second, under section 68, terms must be transparent, meaning expressed in plain and intelligible language and legible. A lack of transparency is relevant to fairness and, in case of doubt, the meaning most favourable to the consumer prevails.

Terms that are automatically unfair or suspect

Schedule 2 to the Act contains a “grey list” of terms that may be regarded as unfair. In a student accommodation context, the CMA has flagged clauses that are commonly problematic, including:

Charges set at the landlord’s discretion or that can be varied unilaterally after you have signed. Unreasonably high charges for giving permission, for example to keep a pet or make a minor alteration. Terms requiring you to use a particular third party for energy or telecommunications. Charges that do not reflect the landlord’s actual loss, such as a fixed penalty for cleaning or for a late payment that exceeds the real cost or the interest genuinely lost. Clauses making you liable for damage regardless of fault, or for the entire property when you only rent a room. Excessively long notice periods to end the tenancy, or terms allowing the landlord to end it more easily than you can. Automatic renewal or “rollover” clauses that trap you into a further period. Clauses purporting to exclude the landlord’s repairing obligations or liability for the accommodation’s condition.

A term is not automatically void just because it appears on the grey list, but it invites close scrutiny and the burden of showing fairness effectively falls on the landlord.

Guaranteed rent and joint liability

A very common student complaint is a clause making all joint tenants “jointly and severally liable” for the whole rent, so that if one housemate leaves or fails to pay, the others must cover the shortfall. Joint and several liability is a standard and generally lawful feature of joint tenancies, and it is not automatically unfair, but the way it is presented and whether it was made transparent can matter. Whether it can be challenged depends heavily on the wording and how clearly it was explained before signing.

Tenant fees and deposits

Separately from the unfair terms regime, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 bans most fees a landlord or agent can charge in England on assured shorthold tenancies and student lettings. Only permitted payments are allowed, such as rent, a capped deposit, a capped holding deposit, and genuine default or damages charges. A clause requiring you to pay a banned fee is unenforceable and the money is recoverable. If your tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy, your deposit must also be protected in a government-approved scheme, and failure to do so gives you a separate claim. Note that lettings by a specified educational institution to its own students may fall outside assured shorthold status, which affects which of these rules apply, so the exact nature of your provider matters.

What you need to check before deciding it is unfair

Before treating a term as unlawful, it is worth pausing on whether there is an ordinary, legitimate explanation for it. Many clauses that feel harsh, for example a full-year rent liability in PBSA or a deposit deduction for genuine damage, are lawful allocations of ordinary commercial risk rather than unfair terms. The distinction usually turns on the precise wording, whether the charge reflects a real loss, and whether it was clearly disclosed. To assess your specific clause I would need to know:

1. The exact wording of the term you object to.
2. The type of provider and agreement, for example a university hall licence, a PBSA operator, or a private landlord.
3. Whether the tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy or an excluded student let.
4. What you were told and shown before signing, and whether the term was highlighted.
5. What you are actually being asked to pay or do, and the sum involved.

Practical steps

1. Gather the documents: the full signed contract, any handbook or terms it refers to, marketing material, emails, and the deposit protection certificate if there is one.

2. Identify the specific clause and the money or obligation in dispute, and note why you say it causes a significant imbalance to your detriment.

3. Raise it in writing with the landlord or provider first. Set out the clause, explain why you consider it unfair or a banned fee, and ask them to withdraw or refund it. Keep it factual and calm; many providers back down when the Consumer Rights Act or Tenant Fees Act is cited accurately.

4. Use the internal complaints procedure. University-provided accommodation will have one, and unresolved complaints can go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education if the provider is a member.

5. Escalate to a redress scheme or regulator. Private landlords and agents in England must belong to a redress scheme (currently the Property Redress Scheme or, for agents, The Property Ombudsman), which can consider complaints for free. Trading Standards can act on banned fees. The CMA takes an interest in unfair terms across the sector but does not resolve individual disputes.

6. Deposit disputes: if there is a protected deposit, use the free alternative dispute resolution offered by the deposit scheme rather than going to court.

7. Court as a last resort. You can raise unfairness as a defence if the landlord sues you for money under the term, or bring a small claim to recover money paid under an unfair or banned term. Weigh the cost, delay, and stress against the sum at stake before litigating; for most student disputes the informal and redress-scheme routes are quicker and cheaper.

Key point on strategy

You have a strong legal position where a term is genuinely one-sided, hidden, or a banned fee, because unfair terms are simply not binding and banned fees are recoverable. But success depends on the exact wording and on distinguishing a genuinely unfair clause from an ordinary, transparent allocation of risk. If you paste the specific clause and tell me the type of provider and agreement, I can give a much more targeted assessment of whether it is likely to be unfair and how best to challenge it.